list_data_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It mentions the markdown-formatted return and optional filter, but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or side-effect-free. The 'list' name implies this, but explicit disclosure would be better.

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 has a clear structure (summary, args, returns) but repeats the same statement in the first two sentences. It's compact overall, with only minor redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what it lists, the optional filter, and the response format. It doesn't need to explain return values further since output schema exists.

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 only parameter 'type' is fully described in the schema with the same wording as in the description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'List all data stores in the architecture' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from add/update/delete data store tools, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose as a list/read operation is clear, and the optional type filter provides context for narrowing results. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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