aoci_get_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not modify formal cognition or Baseline but may append a local audit record, which is important side-effect information. However, it omits permissions, error behavior, pagination, and response structure, and the phrase 'Legacy live drift behavior is unchanged' is opaque without further context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the paragraph is dense with domain jargon and contains phrases like 'Legacy live drift behavior is unchanged' that are not clearly meaningful to an outside agent. Most sentences contribute, but clarity suffers from unexplained legacy/Volumes terminology.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key mode selection, usage routing, and side-effect disclosure needed to invoke it correctly. It partially addresses return behavior ('returns volume identity with each result'), though it leaves some operational details such as error handling and exact response shape unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description ties parameters to modes ('Legacy and Code use repository paths or a directory; Volumes v1 also accepts volume_id and canonical object_refs') and mentions database:// identities, but this largely restates what the schema already documents per parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read specified Entries') and distinguishes the tool from the Overview workflow by warning not to substitute a few Entries for complete Overview. It does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like aoci_search or aoci_report, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among read-oriented siblings.

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?

It states explicit usage conditions ('local uncertainty, an incomplete Overview, or an explicit Entry request') and an explicit exclusion ('do not substitute a few Entries for complete Overview'). It does not mention when to prefer aoci_search or other siblings, but the core routing guidance is clear.

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