store_get

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the exact return shape, including metadata fields (_id/_created/_updated/_deviation/_action), the not_found behavior for absent or soft-deleted records, and the store_scope confinement. This goes well beyond the basic readOnlyHint and gives an agent a reliable model of the tool's 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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and includes only high-value details: return format, error behavior, read-only nature, and scope. No word is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers return values, metadata, and error cases. With three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides enough semantic context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It is complete for a simple single-record read operation.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does clarify that record_id is the exact ID, collection is a SOIL collection, and app_id relates to store_scope, but it does not fully explain each parameter's format or origin. The compensation is partial, not 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 states a specific action ('Read one record'), a specific resource ('a SOIL collection'), and a specific lookup mode ('by its exact ID'). This clearly distinguishes store_get from sibling tools like store_search or store_list, which cover broader retrieval patterns.

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 makes the intended usage context clear: use it when you have an exact record ID and need a single record, not a search or listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'exact ID' phrasing and read-only scope provide strong contextual guidance.

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