list_targets

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the paginated skeleton return, default limit, and that targets have no per-call invocation log. This goes beyond repeating annotations.

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 a single concise paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: legacy status, return format, default limit, alternative recommendations, and log behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 7 parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it returns, why to use it, and alternatives. It could explicitly mention caching behavior (already in schema) but is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description text merely lists some parameters (cursor, fields, filter, verbose) without adding new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, thus meeting baseline expectations.

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 explicitly states it returns 'legacy outbound targets' (URL/email integration endpoints) which are deprecated. It specifies the returned fields as paginated skeletons and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_webhooks, making the purpose distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'only for migration audits'. It also states when not to use it: 'Modern instances should use list_webhooks'. Additionally, it suggests an alternative for change history: use list_audit_logs.

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