cpp_locale_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation (list) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or scope of data returned (e.g., pagination, format). For a listing tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a brief note on usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has three parameters (two required) and no output schema. The description covers the high-level purpose but does not explain the return format or what 'localized assets' means. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a complete understanding.

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 low (33%, only for `orgId`). The description does not explain `adamId` or `productPageId`, which are required. The `orgId` parameter has a schema description, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's action ('List the locales available for a Custom Product Page') and includes contextual detail ('with localized assets per locale'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `cpp_get` and `apps_locale_details` by specifying 'Custom Product Page' and 'locales'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies usage when needing locales for a specific CPP, but it does not mention `apps_locale_details` or other `cpp_*` tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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