cdek_cities

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it returns a list of cities and codes but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, authentication, or error handling. The GET nature is implied by the endpoint but not stated.

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 short and front-loads the main action. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not waste words. Could be slightly more structured.

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?

The description mentions city codes and a list, but lacks details on other returned fields, request format, or any limitations. Since an output schema exists, the description is adequate but has gaps.

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 description adds meaning to the 'city' parameter by stating it accepts partial names (e.g., 'Новосиб'), which goes beyond the schema's raw type/required info. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable.

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 tool returns a list of cities with their SDEC codes via GET /v2/location/cities. It distinguishes from siblings like cdek_suggest_cities and cdek_delivery_points by being a general cities list.

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 implies usage for obtaining city codes needed for other operations but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like cdek_suggest_cities or cdek_regions.

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