cvcue_list_locations

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the result is flattened rather than nested, and querying a location returns data for its entire subtree. It says nothing about whether the list is tenant-wide by default, ordering, pagination, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important fact (what you get back) is front-loaded before the scoping rationale. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is responsible for the return shape, and it partially delivers by naming the four fields and stating the list is flat. For a one-optional-param read tool this is nearly sufficient; only ordering/default-scope behavior is left open.

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 the single optional parameter `name_contains` is fully documented there, including case-insensitivity and that it matches name or path. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the CV-CUE location hierarchy'), clarifies the shape ('flat list') and names the returned fields (id, type, parentId, path). Combined with the sibling names, an agent can infer this is the enumeration counterpart to cvcue_get_location, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 line 'Location ids scope most other tools via `location_id`' gives a concrete reason to call this first, turning it into a setup/step-zero tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to call cvcue_get_location instead of this), so it falls short of a 5.

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