List targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's useful addition is disclosing what the listing contains (type, project, source directory, artifacts, languages), which compensates for the absent output schema. It says nothing about pagination, cost, or filter combination behavior.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably terse for a six-parameter tool with no usage guidance.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return shape by naming the listed attributes, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, for a six-param tool with a buildDir/configuration selection burden, missing guidance on filter interplay and sibling routing leaves clear gaps.

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%, and each of the six parameters is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of "type", "project" and "directory" reads as returned fields rather than filter semantics, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ("Lists build targets") and enumerates the attributes returned (type, project, defining directory, artifacts, languages). It is distinguishable from get_target (singular/detailed) and find_file_targets, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 on when to call this versus get_target, find_file_targets, or list_projects, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and returned-field list.

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