list_wards

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral quirk—the sentinel '-1' for district_code in level=2—and explains the relationship between levels. It does not explicitly state return format or pagination, but for a list operation this is acceptable and the disclosed sentinel is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then covering the two usage modes and the sentinel. Every sentence adds necessary context with no filler.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (two administrative levels, sentinel, parameter dependencies), the description covers all necessary guidance: how to obtain codes, what to pass for each level, and the post-reform special case. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently supports correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers parameter descriptions 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking district_code and province_code to their source tools (list_districts and list_provinces), and by explaining the conditional requirement based on level. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('List wards (Phường/Xã)') and immediately differentiates the tool from the sibling tools list_provinces and list_districts by specifying how to obtain codes from each. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicit usage instructions for both levels: level=3 with district_code from list_districts, and level=2 with province_code from list_provinces({level:2}). It also clarifies the sentinel '-1' for district_code in post-reform wards, leaving no ambiguity about which parameters to pass.

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