get_record_definition

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

Describes automatic PS_ prefix addition and return content (type, fields, keys, parent record). No annotations, so description carries full burden. Adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

Succinct yet comprehensive: summary, Args, Returns sections. No wasted words.

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?

Covers parameter behavior and return summary. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a simple one-param tool with no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains record name expects standard names, auto-adds PS_ prefix. 0% schema coverage means description must compensate, and it does well.

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?

Clearly states it gets the complete definition of a PeopleSoft record including fields, keys, and properties. Distinct from siblings like describe_table and search_records.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for understanding data structures, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Mentions the PS_ prefix behavior but lacks comparison to alternatives.

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