tc_list_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return structure, the meaning of 'origin' as API base URL, and the one-region-per-project constraint, which are not just repeated from annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return format snippet, and a clarifying note about region resolution. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wasted words.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the meaning of the fields, and the relationship to other tools (auto-resolution), fully covering the necessary context for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly omits parameter information entirely.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Trimble Connect regional servers' with examples of regions. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other list tools like tc_list_projects or tc_list_project_roles, which operate on different resources.

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 implicit usage context by noting 'other tools resolve the region automatically from project_id,' suggesting this tool is not needed for everyday operations but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to avoid it. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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