Read a workspace store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stating 'free' (cost) and, critically, disclosing the allowlisted keys — an invocation constraint not expressible in the schema. Return format is still unspecified, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the essential allowlist, then the routing parenthetical. Dense but every clause carries signal; the long key list is necessary because the schema lacks enums.

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?

Given read-only annotations, no output schema, and simple two-param input, the description covers purpose, valid keys, cost, and sibling routing. It stops short of describing the returned shape (the fact that limit caps array items hints but does not explain).

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the schema does not enumerate valid keys (parameters with enums: 0). The description compensates by listing all valid heist.* / adInspo.* key values, adding meaning the schema lacks. Two sentences noting the limit is about max array items would push it higher.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one of this workspace's data stores by key), then enumerates the concrete contents (playbooks, swipefile, locations, avatars, etc.). An agent can immediately distinguish it from typed siblings like list_memory and get_brand.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: names the typed alternatives (list_memory / list_skills / get_brand) as friendlier for those domains and instructs to 'use store_get for the rest.' The allowlist of keys bounds when this tool is valid at all.

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