get_workspace_locations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the response shape in detail, including fields like auto_resolves and recommended. It mentions backward compatibility for the locations field. It does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only, but the name and context imply it is a query without side effects.

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: a concise summary sentence followed by a response shape in a code block. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the output. No redundant or vague statements.

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 the simple input (one parameter) and the detailed response shape provided in the description, the tool is fully documented. The agent knows exactly what to expect and how to interpret the output for subsequent decisions. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for workspace_name. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The example in the schema ('t-oncall') is helpful but not extensive.

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 lists runner locations with auto-resolution guidance. It provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('runner locations'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique response structure and guidance set it apart.

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 guidance is provided: when auto_resolves is True, the agent should not pass a location argument. It also explains that the recommended field tells which location sibling tools will pick when omitted. This clearly indicates when to use the tool and how to interpret its output for subsequent calls.

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