data_coremgr_opdata_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important behavior: normal users are scoped to only their own logs. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors like default limit, time-filter behavior, or what fields the returned records contain.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key access-control caveat. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 listing tool with six optional, fully documented parameters, the description provides the essential semantic core and the important visibility constraint. It is slightly incomplete because it does not indicate what fields or record shape will be returned, which is more relevant given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'coremgr operation log records', making the primary purpose clear. It adds the scoping detail that normal users only see their own logs, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling data_coremgr_opdata_count tool.

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 the tool is useful by describing record listing and user-level visibility, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as the count variant. The 'normal users see only their own logs' note is a useful context cue but not a usage directive.

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