get_locations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by detailing the nested PARENTLOCATION structure and downstream usage, but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or explicitly state read-only status (though 'Lists' implies it).

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second describes output shape, and the third explains downstream utility. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains output structure and workflow fit. It could briefly mention pagination or ALLPARTITIONS behavior, but the schema already provides parameter semantics, so the description is adequately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; STARTFROMKEY and ALLPARTITIONS are already fully documented in the schema, and the description does not clarify their effects or usage context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the locations configured on the NetBox system.' It also describes the output record structure and names downstream consumers of LOCATIONKEY, making it distinct from the many sibling get_* tools by both name and behavior.

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?

Provides clear context that the result is a location tree and that LOCATIONKEY values are used by get_portal_statuses and set_threat_level, implying when an agent would need this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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