get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The allowlist constraint is disclosed, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), permission requirements, or output format beyond 'full details'. For a read operation, this is acceptable but not thorough, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise: two main sentences plus a short constraint statement. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and constraints. It lacks explicit error/return details, but 'full details' suffices. With no output schema, it does enough to set expectations. A 4 reflects its near-completeness for this tool's complexity.

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%, and both parameters ('table' and 'sys_id') are well-described in the schema. The description adds minor context (like 'from a prior query_table call') but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a single ServiceNow record') and identifies the key identifier (sys_id). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like query_table (which lists multiple records) and create/update/delete operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when you already know the sys_id from a prior query_table call and need full details. It implicitly steers to query_table when sys_id is unknown, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not cases. Still, the context is clear and useful.

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