List PromptJang targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description reinforces this with 'never creates or changes targets' and adds that results are scoped to the API key. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage note is placed immediately after, making the definition easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple, safe listing tool with one optional enum parameter, a full output schema, and strong annotations. The description adds workflow context and clarifies scope, so nothing necessary is missing.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully described in the schema with its enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema description coverage this is acceptable; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PromptJang webhook, mailbox, and A2A targets'), and scopes it to the API key. Enumerating target types makes the tool's broad scope clear and implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling list_mailboxes.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call this before send_event,' which gives clear workflow context. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or mention list_mailboxes as an alternative, but the primary usage signal is strong.

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