list_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting that the default pattern can be slow and explaining pattern normalization, which goes beyond structured data. No contradictions.

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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail without verbosity.

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 covers core usage and performance considerations. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It is complete for a listing tool, though it omits behavior for empty results.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears the full burden. It explains the 'package' parameter meaning, default value, and usage patterns (//pkg, //pkg/...), significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it lists targets matching a package pattern, with a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of usage but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bazel_query, which may also list targets. However, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on default vs. specific patterns and a performance warning. However, it does not advise when to use alternative tools like bazel_query or bazel_test for different query needs.

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