Read a workspace store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact allowed keys (the allowlist) and reiterating that the operation is read-only and free. This exceeds a baseline but does not detail response formats or error handling, which are minor for a simple read tool.

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 information-dense without fluff. It front-loads the core action, lists stores and allowed keys, and then guides the user to alternatives—all in a logical, scannable structure. Each sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical note is neatly appended.

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, read-only tool with a single required parameter, the description is complete. It provides the full allowlist, distinguishes from siblings, and notes the read-only/free nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (key and limit) with descriptions, but the description adds crucial value by enumerating the exact allowed key values (e.g., heist.memory.v1, adInspo.swipefile.v1) that are not in the schema as an enum. This is essential for correct invocation, going beyond what the schema provides.

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's action ('Read one of this workspace’s data stores by key') and the resource it operates on, listing specific store types. It also explicitly differentiates from the typed sibling tools (list_memory, list_skills, get_brand), making it unambiguous which tool to choose.

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 explicit usage guidance: it names the typed alternatives (list_memory, list_skills, get_brand) as 'friendlier' for certain keys and instructs to 'use store_get for the rest.' It also states the read-only, free nature, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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