get_record_by_id

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

无注释，描述承担全部责任。描述暗示只读操作（“查询”），但未明确说明非破坏性、权限要求或错误处理（如记录不存在时的行为）。基本透明但不够详细。

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?

单个句子，无冗余，直截了当。

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?

没有输出架构，描述未提及返回格式。工具名称暗示返回记录详细信息，但未明确说明。参数描述足够，但整体缺少对响应内容的预期。对于简单工具，基本完整但可改进。

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?

参数架构覆盖100%，两个参数都有描述。tableName的描述（“表名称，不是ID”）增加了额外信息。但工具描述本身没有补充参数含义，因此基线为3。

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?

描述明确指出工具功能：根据ID查询单个表记录的详细信息。动词“查询”和“单个”表明确切用途，与get_table_records（列表）和get_table_by_id（表元数据）等兄弟工具区分。但未明确提及排除项。

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?

未提供使用指南。没有说明何时使用此工具与兄弟工具（如get_table_records）的对比，也没有提到前提条件或排除情况。

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