target_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key scoping behavior (only declared targets appear, undeclared ones are invisible) and the return field set. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, volume limits, or whether the list is authoritative vs. cached, which matter for a zero-argument list tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint and the field enumeration, with zero redundant phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the enumerated fields are the only return-value documentation and they are included. What's missing is minor framing: whether results are ordered, bounded, or filtered by any ambient scope.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 DECLARED targets') and enumerates the returned fields (name, kind, address, declared channel, owner agent, desk, declared resources), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling probe_target, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Undeclared targets are invisible' implies this is the wrong tool when the agent needs undiscovered targets, but it never says so explicitly or points to probe_target/fleet_snapshot as the alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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