fm_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. It describes the return as 'Formatted text with all fields for the matching record' but does not disclose error handling (e.g., lookup failure) or authentication needs. Adequate for a simple getter but slightly incomplete.

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 concise (8 lines plus Args) and well-structured: a clear summary sentence, usage guidance, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (get by PK) and the presence of an output schema (context confirms), the description adequately covers usage context, parameter sources, and return format. No gaps for this use case.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section: table (use fm_list_tables), record_id (primary key value), id_field (use fm_get_schema to find PKs). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get a single FileMaker record by its primary key,' specifying the verb (get), resource (FileMaker record), and method (by primary key). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fm_query_records, which likely handles complex queries.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when you know the specific record ID and want full details') and how to find valid table names and primary key fields via fm_list_tables and fm_get_schema. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for when not to use.

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