conduyt_list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: role-based visibility (admins/owners see all, others see their own). It leaves one gap unstated: what happens if a non-admin passes another user's userId (error versus silently scoped to self).

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and returned fields lead; access rules and the enumerated metrics/periods follow. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating metrics and periods and naming the returned fields. Pagination or response shape is not addressed, but for a small per-user target list that is a minor omission.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning: userId selects one user's targets, and the access rules explain when that parameter is usable to read someone else. That is more than the schema's terse 'One user's targets'.

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: it lists the account's per-user targets, and it names the fields returned (userId, metric, period, value). It doesn't explicitly name its write counterpart (conduyt_set_targets), so an agent must infer the read-vs-write split from the verb alone.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent who sees what: admins and owners read everyone's targets, anyone else only their own. That is real usage context, but there is no exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. reports that surface target attainment).

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