list_project_target_preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds above and beyond by explaining that records are attached to projects, used by UI/workflows, and contain SDK-open key/value payloads. It also clarifies that omitting project returns recent preferences across projects, adding behavioral nuance.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining records, giving usage patterns, and describing data format. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (list preferences with optional filter), the description covers all key aspects: what records are, how to use parameters, and the nature of the data. Annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The agent has a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both 'project' and 'limit'. The description adds meaningful context for the 'project' parameter, explaining how its presence or absence changes the scope of results. This goes beyond the schema's terse description. The 'limit' parameter is well-documented in the schema (max 200, default 50), so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('per-project tracker target preference records'), immediately clarifying the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it is for project target preferences, and further differentiates behavior with and without the project parameter, making it unique among listing tools.

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 explicitly states two usage patterns: omit project to list recent preferences across projects, or pass a project identifier for a specific project. This provides clear context on when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like the write counterpart 'upsert_project_target_preference', but the usage guidance is still strong.

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