List HTTP Targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds what data is returned (status, response, TLS summary) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output summary.

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?

The description adequately covers the core function of listing targets and their status, but it omits mention of optional filtering by tags or status and provides no details on return structure. Given the schema captures parameters, the description is slightly incomplete for the tool's full range of capabilities.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the optional tags or status filter parameters. The failure to compensate for the lack of parameter information leaves the agent without guidance on how to refine the list.

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 registered HTTP targets and includes their latest status, response, and TLS summary. The verb 'List' plus the specific resource 'HTTP targets' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_servers.

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 clearly conveys the use case—obtaining an overview of all HTTP targets and their operational state. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like check_http_target, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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