getTableRecord

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation ('[READ-ONLY]'), specifies the required permission scope ('tables:read'), and indicates it's a specific retrieval operation rather than a list operation. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or response format details.

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 extremely efficient with three concise, information-dense sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core functionality, the API endpoint reference, and the permission requirement with read-only designation. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, API mapping, permission requirements, and read-only nature. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the return value contains (record data) or potential error cases.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The mention of the API endpoint structure reinforces the parameter usage but doesn't add semantic details.

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 specific action ('Gets a specific record'), resource ('from a Tulip Table'), and scope ('specific record' vs. list operations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listTableRecords' by specifying retrieval of a single record rather than listing multiple records.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the required scope ('tables:read') and the HTTP method equivalence ('GET /tables/{tableId}/records/{recordId}'), which helps understand when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'listTableRecords' for bulk retrieval.

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