get_xcom_entry

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 but offers none. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, what happens if the XCom entry doesn't exist, or whether this operation has side effects. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic verb.

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 just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains zero wasted words and is perfectly front-loaded. Every word directly relates to the tool's purpose, earning its place in the description.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what XCom entries are, how to use the tool, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the tool returns. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool use.

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?

With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'dag_id', 'dag_run_id', 'task_id', 'xcom_key', 'map_index', 'deserialize', or 'stringify' mean or how they relate to retrieving XCom entries. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 an XCom entry' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't explain what XCom entries are, what resource is being accessed, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_xcom_entries' (plural). The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'get_xcom_entries', or any context about XCom systems. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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