btp_list_destinations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('list') without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise (9 words) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is too brief to be fully effective, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It fits the structure well but could benefit from a touch more detail.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of generic parameters, the description should provide more context on how to use the tool (e.g., how to specify the subaccount). It does not address return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has two parameters (args, kwargs) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean, how to use them, or provide any examples. The agent has no semantic information to populate these parameters correctly, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 tool lists all destinations (HTTP/RFC connections) in a subaccount. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like btp_list_service_instances (which lists service instances) and btp_get_destination (which gets a single destination).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., btp_get_destination for a specific destination). It does not specify prerequisites or context for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and siblings.

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