list_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the server-side limit cap (100), valid scan_status values, and the special semantics of last_scanned_before (matches never-scanned targets). However, it omits return format, pagination details, and any explicit confirmation that this is a read-only operation. The disclosed behaviors add value but leave gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical constraints and semantics. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more organized by grouping parameter details, but overall it is concise and readable.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain several parameters, provides no information about the response structure or pagination behavior, and does not mention any defaults beyond what the schema already shows. The absence of these details leaves the agent guessing on important aspects of invocation and interpretation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains limit, scan_status, and last_scanned_before, but leaves tag, page, online, archived, and domain_search entirely undocumented. This partial compensation is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 targets') and resource ('for this key's tenant'), and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes conceptually from sibling get_target (which fetches a single target), though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The verb and scope are specific and 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_target or other listing operations. It does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios. The description explains filter behavior but does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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