List code debug targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Node and JVM (Java/Kotlin) targets are experimental' and 'local managed' scoping, warning users about experimental support and scope limitations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It includes the experimental caveat without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple, read-only, zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it identifies what is listed, the qualifying condition, and the experimental status. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description need not add parameter detail. It correctly omits any parameter-related information.

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 action and resource: 'List local managed language runtime deployments...' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_browser_targets or list_debug_sessions, which target different resource types.

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 clear context—it lists runtime deployments eligible for 'last-resort code debugging'—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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