List User Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return record fields and the downstream use of desc_id, which is meaningful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation or describe any error/edge-case behavior, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the return shape is specified in a compact inline object, and the follow-up instruction about desc_id earns its place by connecting this tool to its siblings.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining the return values, which it does by listing the entry fields. It also explains how the output should be consumed. It could go further by noting the absence of side effects or behavior on targets with no User Data, but for a simple listing tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 for the single handle parameter is 100%, and the schema already describes it as 'Target to inspect.' The prose description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the target concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Enumerate') and a precise resource ('User Data slots on a target'), and immediately states the shape of each returned entry. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like add_user_data or remove_user_data without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied: you call this to inspect User Data slots on a target. It also tells the agent how to use the returned desc_id with remove_user_data, get_params, and set_params. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_params or when not to use it, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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