list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses what the call returns (name, engine, diagnosability) and proactively rules out sensitive output ('Never returns connection strings or secrets'). It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the target list is cached/live, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by when to call it and the security caveat. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, downstream usage, and output sensitivity. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully explains the target=<name> convention used by sibling tools, giving context for the values this call exposes, but there are no parameters of its own to document further.

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 ('List the databases Anumana is configured to analyse') and enumerates returned attributes (name, engine, diagnosability). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_policies and the preflight_* tools by being the inventory/discovery call.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call this FIRST in a multi-DB setup'), the downstream handoff ('then pass target=<name> to the other tools'), and the single-DB alternative ('you can omit target and the one database is used'). An agent knows exactly when to call it and what to do with the result.

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