get-key-value-store-record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that exactly one record is retrieved (a 'single' record) and enriches understanding of the built-in keys, which is beyond the schema. However, it omits details like idempotency, error behavior, or whether it is read-only—though 'Get' implies safety. The added key semantics justify an above-baseline score.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then uses a colon to introduce a compact parenthetical list of the most important key-value store records. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 two-parameter GET-like tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the special records. It could mention the return format or error handling, but given the simplicity of the operation, the current coverage is sufficient.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by enumerating the special values for 'recordKey' (ORDER_SUMMARY, DEDUP_UPDATE, STATUS) and what they map to, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Key of the record' – hence above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single record from a run's key-value store'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get-actor-run' (run metadata) and 'get-dataset-items' (dataset items). No ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 names three special keys (ORDER_SUMMARY, DEDUP_UPDATE, STATUS) and explains their meaning, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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