fact_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. The verb 'Read' conveys it is a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the history parameter returns past versions, what fields are returned, or any potential side effects. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or the semantics of the 'history' parameter. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the core fetch action, but important context about history and return values is missing, making it incomplete for a reliable invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter (record_id or history). It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, so the agent receives no guidance on how or when to set history or what record_id format is expected beyond the pattern.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one canonical AFS fact or practice record'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fact_search (searching) and fact_propose (proposing new facts) by emphasizing 'one canonical' record.

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 phrase 'one canonical' implies this tool is for retrieving a single, specific record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like fact_search or document_get. It offers implied context without clear exclusions or mentions of other tools.

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