get_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource without revealing any side effects, required permissions, or return characteristics. For a read-like operation, it doesn't clarify whether the file path must be local or remote, or whether the operation is safe and non-destructive.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It has no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices usefulness for brevity, which prevents a higher score.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is insufficiently complete. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't indicate what information will be returned (e.g., duration, size, format). It also doesn't clarify the purpose of 'out_format' or provide any examples. An agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Voice file path' and 'Output format'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states. The term 'Output format' is vague and not clarified in the description, but since the schema covers it, a baseline score of 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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'voice record information', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves data about a voice record. It is distinct from siblings like can_send_record (which checks capability) and get_image (which retrieves images), so the purpose is reasonably clear, though it doesn't specify what 'information' includes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether it should be used before sending a voice record, or how it relates to other retrieval tools like get_msg or get_group_msg_history. The description leaves the agent to infer its use case.

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