list_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the operation returns all storage locations in the system, which is useful scope info. However, it does not mention any behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or response format—though the output schema may cover some of this.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The scope ('all storage locations') is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling list tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no conflicting or extraneous parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('storage locations') with an explicit scope ('all...in the system'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials and list_brands.

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—when you need all storage locations—but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. Since the resource is distinct from siblings, the intended use is reasonably clear, but no usage boundary is stated.

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