Get Workspace Locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it explains that the payload resolves the location for downstream run_*/commit_slx calls, defines 'auto_resolves' semantics, and identifies 'private' runners as preferred and 'public' as fallback. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, leaving a small gap for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key 'auto_resolves' rule, but the description then reproduces a full response-shape JSON block with inline comments. Since an output schema exists, much of that block duplicates structured data and lengthens the definition unnecessarily.

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?

The response-shape explanation and the 'recommended'/'auto_resolves' semantics give the agent enough to call this correctly and act on the result without opening other schemas. Return values are technically covered by the output schema, but the extra semantic annotations here (preferred vs fallback, skill reference) genuinely add value.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'workspace_name'. The description adds only indirect meaning by tying the resolved result to the 'location' parameter of other tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List runner locations') and clarifies the tool's real job — resolving which location the run_*/commit_slx tools will pick. It references the consuming siblings by name, so an agent can place it in the workflow, though it never sharply contrasts against a competing sibling for the same query.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: when 'auto_resolves' is True the agent should NOT pass a 'location' argument at all. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a documented field. It stops short of naming alternative tools or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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