get_locators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the shape of the payload (locator name, beat, plus song length), but an output schema exists, so that information is partially redundant. Nothing about side effects, cost or failure modes is added, which is acceptable for a parameterless read.

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 sentence with zero waste; the resource and its scope are front-loaded and the returned fields follow immediately. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is padded.

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 parameterless read with a complete annotation set and an output schema, the description supplies enough to choose and call the tool correctly. The only gap is the absence of any pointer to the related create_locator/set_locator/delete_locator siblings or to ordering of the returned locators.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It does at least name the two fields each locator carries, which helps interpret the result set.

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 names the resource precisely (Arrangement locators) and the fields returned (name, beat), plus an extra datum (song length). That distinguishes it from the mutation siblings create_locator, set_locator and delete_locator, which are the only close alternatives. It loses a point only because the verb is implicit ("All ... locators") rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The word "All" does scope the call as an unfiltered full read, which implicitly frames its use, and the zero-parameter signature makes invocation unambiguous. Guidance 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.