virtual_services_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the 'list' action returns all locations and requires a workspace_id, which is useful. However, it does not describe any side effects, authorization requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a read-only tool, some of this may be implied, but the description is not thorough.

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 structured with a clear intro, usage note, and action breakdown, but the inclusion of the full Location Schema as a raw dictionary is verbose and interrupts the flow. It is not overly long, but the schema dump could be considered excessive and is not integrated cleanly. The structure is acceptable but not highly polished.

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 a generic input schema with two required parameters, and the description covers only one action ('list'). It provides enough detail to invoke that action, including the mandatory workspace_id, but it does not explain if there are other actions or provide guidance on the 'action' parameter's expected values. The included output schema helps, but the overall picture is incomplete for a tool that supports multiple potential actions.

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?

The input schema is generic with only 'action' and 'args' and 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the 'list' action and the required workspace_id parameter, as well as providing a location schema for the output. However, it does not clarify the possible values for 'action' beyond a single example, nor does it describe any other potential arguments. This is partial compensation but leaves ambiguity.

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 handles operations on locations and explicitly says to use it for reading location information. The 'list' action is described with a specific purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other resources like services or configurations. However, it is not fully specific about all possible operations, as it only lists one action despite saying 'Operations'.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when a user needs to read locations information.' This clearly indicates the primary use case. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and direct. A score of 4 is appropriate since it gives a clear context without exclusions.

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