List targets for a format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by spelling out returned fields and the probe rejection behavior, which matters for planning calls. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose and output contents, then give one practical usage rule. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With a rich annotation set, fully documented parameters, and a description that names the output fields and the prerequisite call, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly even with no output schema.

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%, so the schema already explains format and detail fully, including enumerations and examples. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond naming the report contents, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (targets for a given format), enumerates exactly what is included (aliases, value type, minimum probe level, cost class, selector membership), and contrasts with probe by stating probe rejects unknown targets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_formats and probe.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to call: before naming a target not already seen, because probe rejects unknowns rather than guessing. It also ties the format parameter to list_formats, implying the prerequisite and differentiating from list_formats.

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