getLocations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it simply restates the tool's name and provides no additional context about return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It gives no information beyond what the name implies, leaving the agent to assume behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, read-only tool and wastes no tokens.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, no annotations, no output schema—the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. However, it could be marginally improved by explicitly stating the return type (e.g., 'returns a list of location objects'), especially since there is no output schema to fill that gap. Still, for a basic list-retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. The description does not need to add parameter information, and nothing is missing in this regard.

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 'Get all studio locations' clearly states the verb (get), resource (locations), and scope (all). It is concise and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'getSites', which could be a potential source of confusion. Thus, it misses the highest rating for sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where another tool would be more appropriate. For a simple getter, some indication of typical use cases or relationships to sibling tools would be helpful.

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