get_records

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic action without mentioning authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the record type doesn't exist. The pageSize parameter hints at pagination but behavior is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Minor room for improvement by adding a brief note on return format.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does and the key parameter. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, and recordName format, which are gaps for contextual completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (recordName, pageSize) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Retrieve records' with the resource 'records from an Appian application' and the method 'using record type name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_labelling_request and get_appian_suppliers, which focus on creating or getting specific entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies retrieval, there is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of specific contexts (e.g., filtering). The usage is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.