alopeyk_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no network request is sent and the tool is static. It also explains the instance parameter is ignored. This is transparent for a simple static tool, though it could note if there are any limits.

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 concise at two lines plus an args section, but includes a redundant Persian phrase. Still, it is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates key behavior.

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 simplicity (one optional param, static data), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. It is adequately complete.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to the only parameter: 'instance' is explained as 'Accepted for symmetry; ignored (static data)'. This goes beyond the schema's bare typing and default value.

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 the resource 'cities served by Alopeyk On-Demand'. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'static, no network', which distinguishes it from tools that make network requests. The return type (list of city slugs) is explicitly mentioned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it states 'static, no network' implying safety, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like alopeyk_get_address or alopeyk_location_suggestion.

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