list_key_value_stores

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. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), whether the list includes metadata about stores, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each key-value store, whether the list is paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), or how this differs from the sibling 'get_key_value_store' tool. The description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for offset, limit, and unnamed parameters including defaults. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Get list of key-value stores' clearly states the action (get list) and resource (key-value stores), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_key_value_store' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each one.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'get_key_value_store' (singular) that presumably retrieves a specific store, there's no indication whether this tool is for listing all stores, filtered lists, or paginated results versus retrieving a single store by identifier.

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