List Code Locations

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does describe return shape (name, loadStatus enum values, repositories or PythonError), which is useful, but since an output schema exists the return detail is somewhat redundant with structured data. It adds the load-failure retry path, a genuinely useful behavioral fact.

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?

Front-loaded 'List all...' then return details then usage. Every sentence earns its place; no waste. Slightly dense but structured well.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully enumerated in prose (though they are). The description covers the main usage scenarios and a successor tool, but omits any mention of the env parameter, leaving a small but notable gap for an otherwise simple 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?

Only one optional param (env) with 0% schema description coverage, but the value should come from the description. The description mentions nothing about env, leaving the sole parameter undocumented. Baseline for a single optional param is modest, but this gap is a real loss.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (code locations and their load status). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but no sibling covers code locations, so the resource itself is distinct enough.

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?

Explicitly gives 'When to use' triggers (after deployment, when get_instance_status reports errors) and names a related sibling action (reload_code_location). No 'when-not-to-use', but the routing context is clear.

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