store_list

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It details pagination behavior (returning {items, next_cursor}, cursor null on last page), ordering (oldest first), and scope confinement ('confined to your store_scope'). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate it's read-only.

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 compact but information-dense. It leads with the core purpose, then covers pagination mechanics, parameter details, and alternative routing in a logical flow. No extraneous sentences; every word adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (list operation, 4 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how pagination works, how to use params, and which alternatives exist. There's no ambiguity about invocation or expected behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does mention 'limit caps page size (default 50)' and explains the cursor usage, which gives meaning to two parameters. However, it doesn't elaborate on app_id or collection semantics beyond the schema, leaving them as implied. The baseline for low coverage is higher, but the description covers major parameters adequately.

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 purpose: 'Return live records in one SOIL collection, oldest first, each with metadata.' It explicitly mentions the resource (collection), the operation (list), and key characteristics (live, oldest first, metadata), which distinguishes it from siblings like store_search (filtered results) and store_collections (discovery). No ambiguity.

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 explicitly says 'Use store_search for filtered results, store_collections to discover collection names,' providing direct alternatives. It also explains when to use pagination ('pass the returned next_cursor') and how limit works, giving clear context for when to call this tool vs. alternatives.

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