list_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the meaningful guarantee that it does not connect to targets (no live side effects), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the important behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and for a zero-parameter read tool the description covers purpose and side-effect behavior adequately. Only minor details (ordering, empty-result behavior) are left unstated.

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 briefly characterizes what is listed (target IDs and capabilities), which is the only semantic content possible for a no-argument 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List operator-registered target IDs and capabilities') with a clear qualifier ('operator-registered') that scopes the result set. No sibling tool performs enumeration, so it is implicitly distinguished from audit_target, the hardening-plan tools, and the report tools without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Does not connect to targets' hints that this is a cheap, offline enumeration step versus the live work done by audit_target or apply_hardening_plan. There is no explicit statement of when to call it or what alternative to prefer, so an agent must infer the workflow placement.

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