Get Data Store Entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List', but does not mention side effects, output format, or parameter behaviors like the 'top' limit or 'type' selection. The integrationFlow clarification adds some value, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 concise sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds critical parameter context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the required parameter 'dataStoreName' and the optional parameters 'top' and 'type'. The tool is simple, yet the description leaves important usage details undisclosed, making full autonomous invocation difficult.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. Only 'integrationFlow' is clarified ('empty for a global store'). The required 'dataStoreName' is not mentioned, and 'top' and 'type' are left unexplained. This is insufficient for the 4 parameters.

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 function: 'List the entries in a specific data store.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('data store entries'), and adds a scoping detail about integrationFlow for global vs. flow-specific stores. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_message_store_entries' by focusing on data stores, not message stores.

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 when to use it: to list data store entries, and gives a usage hint about the integrationFlow parameter ('empty for a global store'). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the clarification about global vs. flow-specific stores provides enough context for when to set the parameter.

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