list_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that entries carry path, position, and contained devices, but this is largely return-shape information that the output schema already supplies, so the marginal behavioral value is modest.

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 naming the verb and resource first, then the hierarchy. It is compact with no filler, though the long enumerations of levels and fields border on return-value description that overlaps the output schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clean annotations, the description is essentially complete. An agent knows what it returns and that it is safe to call; only an explicit pointer to the sibling alternative is missing.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. Schema description coverage is 100%, so nothing is left undocumented.

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 (the physical workspace hierarchy: Intercity, cities, buildings, closets, racks), so an agent can distinguish it from list_devices, list_notes, and list_links. It does not explicitly contrast itself with show_workspace, which also exposes workspace structure, but the hierarchy enumeration is specific enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is a read-only enumeration, so an agent can infer 'use this to discover the location tree.' But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., show_workspace) for the overlapping case.

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