ms_fetch_all

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic handling of offset, cursor, and other pagination styles, a default max_items cap of 10k, and a structured return format. No contradictions.

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 concise: a purpose sentence, a line on styles handled, and a bullet-like args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the args list could be more visually structured.

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?

The description covers core functionality (pagination handling, output format) but omits error handling, edge cases (e.g., invalid operation_id), and details on the catalog. For a complex tool, it is mostly adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter (operation_id as read endpoint, limit as page size, max_items as hard cap, items_path as override, etc.), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks examples or constraints for valid values.

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 auto-paginates a read endpoint and returns all rows, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ms_call_raw or specific ms_get_* tools by focusing on generic pagination for any read endpoint from the catalog.

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 implies usage for read endpoints needing pagination but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., if a specific endpoint tool is more efficient). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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