get_btp_destinations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Lists all destinations') but does not explicitly state readonly behavior, potential performance, or error conditions. Adequate but not detailed beyond that.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear intro, then filter options, then usage examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, no waste.

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 (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage adequately. It could mention the return format briefly, but output schema presence mitigates that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful value by explaining the filter options (proxy_type: 'OnPremise' or 'Internet'; auth_type: e.g., 'OAuth2ClientCredentials') with examples, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it lists all destinations in a BTP subaccount, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_btp_service_plans by focusing on connections to external systems.

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 provides example queries for when to use the tool, such as 'What destinations are configured in BTP?' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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