list_xcom_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'entries' includes (keys, values, both), pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects. The one-line description adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Lists XCom entries') and includes a scoping qualifier. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a straightforward purpose.

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?

Despite having a 5-parameter schema and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks usage context, parameter explanation, and behavioral details. While an output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description still feels incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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. It does not explain the role of dag_id, dag_run_id, task_id, limit, or offset. The phrase 'for a specific task instance' indirectly hints at the required parameters, but no explicit parameter semantics are provided, leaving pagination and identification details unclear.

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 tool 'Lists XCom entries for a specific task instance.' The verb 'Lists' is specific, and the resource 'XCom entries' with qualifier 'for a specific task instance' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_xcom_entry (singular) and other list tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_xcom_entry. It does not mention exclusions, trade-offs, or specific use cases beyond the basic task-instance scoping. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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