dt3_get_record

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds that original paths and binary bytes are not exposed, which is extra context. This transparency helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations. A perfect score would require more detail on side effects (e.g., whether it marks anything), but it's already strong.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core function, optional behavior, and constraints. No redundant words or vague phrasing. It is well-structured and easy 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?

The output schema is present, so return values are defined elsewhere; the description focuses on constraints like the 16,000-character limit and non-exposure of paths/bytes. This provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool. It lacks a few details like whether the revision is the latest, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 uuid parameter is well described in the schema, including the format (UUID or x-devonthink-item link) and that page/search parameters are ignored. The include_custom_metadata parameter lacks a schema description, but the tool description explains it with a character limit. Combined, both parameters are semantically clear, though the schema could be more complete.

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 that the tool reads document metadata and a revision for safe editing, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It also mentions what is not exposed (original paths and binary bytes), further clarifying the tool's scope. This distinguishes it sufficiently from sibling tools like dt3_read_text that likely handle content.

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 a use case ('for safe editing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like dt3_read_text or dt3_search. Providing a hint about when to choose this tool would improve guidance.

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