iap_list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the operation is a report (read-only), that it covers all configured clusters, and that each entry includes the AP addresses the cluster is allowed to read. It does not detail auth requirements or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter listing operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 that front-loads the action and the object, with no filler or repetition of the tool name. It earns its place by adding the 'may read' scope 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?

For a no-argument, no-annotation tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names the result scope and the distinguishing 'addresses each may read' aspect. The only thing missing is any indication of how this tool fits into a workflow, which is more of a usage-guidelines concern.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not create any confusion by referencing nonexistent arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report'), identifies the resource ('every configured Instant AP cluster'), and adds the distinctive qualifier 'AP addresses each may read,' which sets it apart from sibling get_* AP tools. An agent can tell this is a discovery/list tool rather than a status or test tool.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like iap_test_connection, iap_get_access_points, or iap_show_command, and no mention of prerequisites. The read-only report semantics are implied, but the description leaves all routing decisions to the agent.

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