make_get_records

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are capped with a default of 100 and that each record has a 'key' and 'data' object. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or error conditions, which would further enhance transparency for a read operation.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second adding key details about record structure and limits. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the basic return structure (key and data) and the limit behavior, but lacks details about the response format (e.g., array vs. object), error handling, or pagination. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It repeats the limit default but does not clarify the data_store_id format or provide additional context.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'records in a Make.com data store', making the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like make_add_record and make_delete_record by focusing on listing. The additional detail about records having a 'key' and 'data' object further clarifies what is returned.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool references are given.

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