get_record_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses limits ('Limits 1–100'), semantics of event_limit=0, per-direction relationship limiting, truncation flags for omitted results, and the explicit follow-on instruction for another hop. This goes beyond a surface-level read and gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then layers limits, truncation, and multi-hop guidance in a logical order. Every sentence contributes either purpose, behavior, or practical usage detail.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns, its constraints, and how to extend to another hop. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the text. The main gaps are minor: no explicit error semantics or authentication needs, but nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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. It does: 'Limits 1–100' informs the integer range, 'event_limit=0 omits history explicitly' clarifies a non-obvious default behavior, and 'Relationship limit applies per direction' adds meaning to relationship_limit. record_id is implicitly obvious from 'Get record'. The description adds genuine semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get record/version, one-hop incoming/outgoing links and recent events'. This clearly identifies what the tool fetches and includes useful scope ('including archived records'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the combination of record, links, and events is distinctive enough to set it apart from siblings like get_record_history or traverse.

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?

Usage context is implied through phrases like 'one-hop' and 'recent events', which suggest this is for gathering a bounded context snapshot rather than deep traversal. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as traverse, get_record_history, or resolve_record. The 'Follow a returned ID explicitly for another hop' line is useful operational guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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