qui_list_notification_targets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds the convention for passing path variables, query parameters, and body through arguments. However, it does not disclose output semantics, pagination, or error behavior, which would add more transparency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, the description is generic and does not specify which path or query parameters, if any, are valid for this particular endpoint, leaving the free-form arguments object underspecified for real usage.

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 schema contains only a generic 'arguments' object with additionalProperties and no property descriptions. The description compensates by explaining how to structure arguments (path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), which is essential for invoking the tool even though endpoint-specific keys are not listed.

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 explicitly names the HTTP method and endpoint (GET /notifications/targets), which clearly identifies the operation as listing notification targets. It is distinct from sibling CRUD tools like qui_create_notification_target and qui_delete_notification_target, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_list_notification_events or qui_create_notification_target. The instructions focus on argument-passing mechanics, not selection criteria or context.

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