get-key-value-store-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes the listing nature and the relevant special case ('unnamed=true to include run-produced stores') clear, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or any access prerequisites, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The main action and scope comes first, and the important behavioral note about unnamed stores is in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a simple four-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the motivating use case and relevant filtering behavior. The only real gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned list, but the schema and straightforward list semantics make this a minor limitation.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that unnamed=true includes 'run-produced stores' and connecting the list operation to locating a store after ID loss, which clarifies why and when that parameter matters.

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 identifies a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('key-value stores on the account'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling record/key operations by framing it as the way to to locate a store when its ID was lost. The mention of ORDER_SUMMARY / DEDUP_UPDATE / STATUS records gives concrete context that is not available from the tool name alone.

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 gives a clear use case: use this tool when you need to find a run's key-value store after losing its ID. It also explains when to set unnamed=true. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get-key-value-store-record or get-key-value-store-keys, so it lacks explicit sibling exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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