get_all_records

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 discloses the automatic pagination behavior, which is valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all records') and adds a key behavioral detail ('handles pagination automatically'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating the purpose and pagination behavior. However, for a tool that retrieves data, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance considerations, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 all three parameters (app, query, fields) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all records from a kintone app', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'get_records', which likely retrieve single or multiple records with different parameters or behaviors.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'handles pagination automatically', suggesting this tool is preferred for bulk retrieval without manual pagination. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_records' or 'get_record', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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