td_locations

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

The description discloses storage location (host-side JSON in ~/.tdpilot/locations/<hash>.json) and persistence across sessions, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and actions, the second provides storage and usage context. Every sentence contributes.

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 covers purpose, storage, and pairing with td_get_focus. An output schema exists, so return values are handled there. Minor gap: missing explicit handling for edge cases (e.g., duplicate names), but overall adequate for a multi-action tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 explicitly lists all five actions (save, list, jump-to, rename, delete) and the resource (named network locations per project), providing a clear, specific verb+resource mapping. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by its unique focus on location management.

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 mentions pairing with td_get_focus for spatial vocabulary, which gives context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with other memory/snippet tools.

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