store_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly states 'Read-only,' confines access to 'store_scope,' discloses the return payload (record plus _id/_created/_updated/_deviation/_action metadata), and specifies not_found behavior for absent or soft-deleted records. This goes beyond mere safety hints and covers edge cases.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by return details and edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns (including metadata fields and not_found error), its read-only nature, and scope restriction. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for a simple read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that record_id is an 'exact ID' and that collection is a 'SOIL collection,' but it does not explicitly explain app_id or its relationship to store_scope. The description adds some semantic value but leaves one parameter under-specified.

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 opens with 'Read one record from a SOIL collection by its exact ID,' using a specific verb, resource, and query method. It clearly distinguishes store_get from sibling read tools like store_search and store_list by emphasizing exact-ID lookup and single-record return.

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 phrase 'by its exact ID' provides clear context that this tool is appropriate when the exact record ID is known, implying alternatives like store_search for non-exact queries. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is reasonably clear.

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