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 describes the tool's purpose and a prerequisite step, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or return format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides only basic operational context without deeper behavioral traits.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and another providing usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the primary function stated first.

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?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and a helpful prerequisite. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return format. The description is complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps in operational 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (app_id, record_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'kintoneアプリの1レコードを取得します' (retrieves one record from a Kintone app). It specifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (レコード/record), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'get_record_acl', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 clear usage guidance by recommending to use 'get_form_fields' first to understand field structures before calling this tool. This establishes a helpful prerequisite context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_records' for multiple records or 'get_record_acl' for permissions, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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