List locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that locations inherit backup configurations, but does not elaborate on pagination, output size, or other runtime behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 front-loads the primary action and includes a valuable detail. No filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (locations and their inherited backup configs). Pagination and detail options are documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention typical response size or note that 'full' detail can be large.

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%, so all four parameters (page, detail, search, per_page) are already fully described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying that locations carry backup configs, which is implicit in the 'detail' parameter anyway.

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 lists locations and adds the specific detail that each includes its inherited backup configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like calagopus_list_nodes and calagopus_list_backup_configurations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (to get locations with backup configs) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or provide any exclusions. An agent can infer context but lacks explicit guidance on choosing among the many sibling list tools.

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