Get key-value store record

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

With no annotations, the description must establish the operation's nature, and it does make the non-mutating read behavior explicit. It does not describe missing-key behavior, error semantics, or the shape of the returned record, but the operation is simple enough that these are modest gaps.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the action, object, and lookup criterion.

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 operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the core invocation information is present: read a single record by key. The main remaining gap is the unmentioned storeId parameter and expected behavior when the key is absent.

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 needed to compensate for both parameters. It confirms that 'key' is the lookup key but never explains 'storeId', its default, or how it selects the target store.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('single record from a key-value store'), and the lookup mechanism ('by key'). This cleanly separates it from the sibling tools, which target actors, datasets, schedules, and tasks rather than key-value 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 action is clearly scoped to fetching one record by key, and none of the listed siblings perform a comparable key-value read, so mis-selection is unlikely. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use the tool, but no competing alternative is present.

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