List configured destinations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read operation ('Return JSON describing'). It adds value by specifying the scope ('all configured Stream and Edge destinations in all groups'), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions exist, and it provides useful context beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read operation. It specifies the resource scope clearly, though it lacks parameter details. For a simple list tool with structured support, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. However, it doesn't mention the 'server' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Return JSON describing') and resource ('all configured Stream and Edge destinations in all groups in the Cribl deployment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_groups or list_sources, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like list_groups or list_sources, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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