list_code_locations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return values including error cases. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or mention any authentication/rate limits, but the scope is limited and safe.

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?

Concise three-sentence structure plus bullet-like return list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then usage guidance.

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 an output schema, description does not need to detail return values. It covers usage, return fields, and error cases. Missing parameter documentation is a minor gap, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 has one optional parameter (env) with 0% documentation coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or effect, which is a significant gap for a simple list tool.

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 it lists code locations and their load status, with specific return fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_instance_status by mentioning when to use it after deployment or when errors occur.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section provides clear context for usage: after deployment to verify loading or when get_instance_status reports errors. Also suggests an alternative action (reload_code_location) for failures.

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