cipp_list_named_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention permissions, response format, pagination, or potential side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool does and includes a helpful parenthetical clarification, achieving high information density in minimal space.

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 simple nature (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It defines the resource and the required scope, and the schema handles parameter details. Slight lack of explicit return value or read-only confirmation is minor for a list operation.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameter meaning, including allowed values and special keyword 'allTenants'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('named locations'), and adds clarification ('trusted IPs') to remove ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling tools by specifying a unique resource type, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 correctly indicates the context ('for a tenant') and the scope parameter, making it clear when to use this tool (when needing named locations). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specific resource name differentiates it sufficiently from sibling list tools.

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