list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are ordered front-most first, and monitors are identified as `monitor:N`. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call, nor anything about when the target list changes.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and appending the two facts an agent needs (ordering and monitor ID format). Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool is parameterless, so return values need not be spelled out; ordering plus ID format covers what the schema won't. It would be complete at 5 if it noted these targets are the inputs to pick_region/start_recording.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document. The description still usefully explains the shape of returned identifiers (`monitor:N`), which helps interpretation even though no inputs exist.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and two concrete resources (recordable windows and monitors), and the parenthetical clarifies the identifier format `monitor:N`. It is clearly distinct from sibling list_recordings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other 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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of which siblings (pick_region, start_recording) consume the returned targets. Any guidance is inferred only from the fact that it is a list tool.

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