Get Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral aspects. It correctly notes the AND-only filtering behavior and the need for field discovery. However, it does not discuss default pagination behavior (e.g., default limit), what happens when no records match, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but the description could still add value by summarizing return structure.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides an essential usage constraint and a helpful prerequisite. No unnecessary words or explanations.

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 complexity (6 parameters with nested objects, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose, the AND-only filter constraint, and the prerequisite tool. It could mention error behavior or default pagination, but these are minor gaps. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds context about AND-combined filters and field discovery, but does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool gets multiple records with structured filtering, specifying the resource (records from a kintone app) and verb 'get'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that add, update, delete, or manage form fields by focusing on retrieval with filtering.

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 explicitly states that all filter conditions are AND-combined and that OR conditions are not supported, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also recommends using kintone-get-form-fields first for field discovery. It could still improve by mentioning when other record retrieval tools might be more appropriate, but the primary use case is well-defined.

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