list_data_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 simply says 'List all data targets' with no mention of pagination, default limit, read-only nature, or what a 'data target' is. For a list operation, it implies a safe read, but fails to provide details on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is so minimal that it underspecifies, but under-specification is not the same as verbosity; conciseness itself is high.

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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not explain what constitutes a 'data target' nor confirm the return format, which is a modest gap for a tool among many similar listing tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: 'limit' and 'offset' are both self-explanatory with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides clear semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'data targets' with scope 'all', clearly indicating the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from many similar list_* sibling tools (e.g., list_data_key_targets, list_product_source_targets), relying on the resource name to distinguish. It is clear but not fully distinguished from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to similar listing tools. It only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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