st.config_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Map' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state that it is read-only, what the return format looks like, or whether it has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation help.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and the target concisely.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It tells what the tool maps, but not the shape of the returned mapping or how to interpret 'semaints tools,' leaving the agent with an incomplete expectation of the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty input schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 ('Map') and identifies a clear resource ('high-level SillyTavern configuration domains') mapped to 'real storage locations and semantic tools.' This distinguishes it from siblings like st.config.get and st.config.patch, though 'semantic tools' remains vague.

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 mapping framing implies the tool is for looking up where configuration domains live or which semantic tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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