studio_list_places

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the default scan behavior (common folders) and, together with the schema, the max-depth-3 traversal, but "common folders" is never defined and there is no statement of read-only nature, permissions, or result shape.

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 with the default behavior stated first and the override parenthetically. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it neither enumerates which folders count as "common" nor indicates what the returned listing contains (paths, names, metadata). Just enough to call it, not enough to predict results.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as directories to scan with max depth 3. The description adds the useful nuance that dirs overrides the default common-folder scan, but supplies no format or default-value detail beyond that.

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 (List) and resource (.rbxl/.rbxlx place files), with the scope narrowed to local files in common or supplied folders. It contrasts implicitly with studio_open_place/studio_launch but never names a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus studio_open_place, studio_launch, or studio_status, nor any prerequisite or ordering note. Usage is only inferable from the name and the "or given dirs" phrase.

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