get_table_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool gets a record, without disclosing read-only nature, authentication needs, behavior on missing records, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool 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, focused sentence of 12 words, with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks details on the 'fields' parameter, return format, and error handling. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete given no output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'table' is a technical name and 'sys_id' is the identifier, but does not mention the optional 'fields' parameter or its purpose to restrict returned fields. This leaves a gap for the agent.

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 retrieves a single record by sys_id from any ServiceNow table, using technical names. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target specific tables (e.g., get_incident) or perform list/create/update operations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it can be used for any table, but fails to mention that specific get_* tools should be preferred for their respective tables.

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