list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes '[READ]' (suggesting a read-only operation) and describes the filtering behavior for health and target. However, it does not clarify what 'active' means, whether the result is limited or paginated, or any other side effects or requirements. The core read-only nature is conveyed, but additional behavioral traits are absent.

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 very concise: an initial line summarizing the tool, followed by a short Args section. It is front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 (two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. It lacks an explicit return value description or examples, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. However, the name and verb imply a list of targets, so this is only a minor gap.

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 input schema provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions. The tool description compensates fully by explaining the 'health' parameter ('Filter by health state ("up" or "down")') and the 'target' parameter ('Prometheus target name from config'). This gives the agent the needed semantics to use both arguments correctly.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List active scrape targets.' It also mentions the optional health filter, which is a specific behavior. This distinguishes it from related tools like target_scrape_health or dropped_targets, which focus on health analysis or different target states.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools. The only implicit context is the '[READ]' prefix and the list of capabilities, but there is no explicit usage direction.

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