list_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some behaviors: save_to_file saves results to a temp file and returns a path for jq processing, and output_format changes the shape of results. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, or that this is a read-only operation. The absence of any annotation makes this a moderate gap.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose line followed by an Args list and a Returns line. It is not overly verbose, and each parameter earns its place. The front-loading of the purpose and the organized parameter list make it easy to scan. A few extra words could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all parameters and states the return type. It does not mention error handling, edge cases, or usage examples, but for a listing tool this is fairly complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, and the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. Each parameter is listed with a brief filter description (e.g., 'Filter by organization ID', 'Filter by location name (partial match)'). It also explains page_size max, output_format options, and save_to_file behavior. This goes beyond the schema's types and defaults, though it lacks examples or deeper constraints.

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 'List locations from IT Glue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool by its name from siblings like search_locations and get_location, but does not explicitly explain when to use this list tool versus a search. The purpose is unambiguous, though sibling differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_locations or get_location. It does not mention scenarios where listing is appropriate or where searching would be better. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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