get_record

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It explains return content and context effects but omits key aspects: whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated), error handling for missing records, permission requirements, or potential performance implications. The example helps but leaves gaps.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose, second covers fields parameter, third covers context with example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff, front-loaded with main purpose.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is partially complete. It explains input parameters adequately but fails to describe the return format (e.g., structure of form-view field values). Without an output schema, this omission hinders complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant meaning. It explains 'fields' (subset selection) and 'context' (control read behavior with example). It does not detail 'model' or 'record_id', but these are self-explanatory. Overall, it fills the gaps 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?

The description clearly states 'Return form-view field values for a single record', specifying the verb ('return'), resource ('form-view field values'), and scope ('single record'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_records (multiple records) and search_records (search operation).

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 implies proper usage: use when you need field values for one record. It explains optional parameters for subsetting (fields) and controlling read behavior (context). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_fields or list_records, which would strengthen guidance.

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