list_work_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists all work locations' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all work locations') and adds a useful detail ('with addresses') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, format) and usage context. With no output schema, it partially compensates by mentioning addresses, but more completeness would require guidance on when to use it.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by clarifying that addresses are included in the output, which isn't in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't fully address output semantics (no output schema exists).

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('work locations') with a specific attribute ('with addresses'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'list_teams' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for retrieving all locations at once versus filtered lists, or how it relates to tools like 'get_company' that might include location data. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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