get_xcom_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no entries match. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what XCom entries are, how results are returned, or address behavioral aspects like error handling. For a data retrieval tool in this context, more context is needed.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what XCom entries are, how parameters like dag_id, task_id, or map_index relate to filtering, or the purpose of limit/offset for pagination. This fails to provide meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get all XCom entries' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('XCom entries'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_xcom_entry' (singular). It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all entries globally or with filtering, leaving 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_xcom_entry' (singular) or other data retrieval tools in the sibling list. The description offers no context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.

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