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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying safety, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if the record doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., record data, fields), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_records'. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('app' as app ID and 'id' as record ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('a single record from a kintone app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_records' or 'get_all_records', which would require mentioning the single-record focus versus batch retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving a specific known record ID, contrast with 'get_records' for multiple records, or prerequisites such as needing app and record IDs. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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