List installed destinations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions listing and filtering but does not describe pagination (cursor, limit), archiving behavior (include_archived default), or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficient. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded to cover missing parameters without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, archiving, or response format, which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly across all scenarios.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains connector_id and status. Parameters include_archived, cursor, and limit are not mentioned, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 destination configs installed in the current project, specifies filtering by connector_id and status, and includes examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like destination_get, destination_create, etc., which have different actions.

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 explains when to use filtering by connector_id or status, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., destination_catalog for listing available connectors).

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