list_destinations

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description adds the project scope and channel type enumeration, and claims 'all', but offers no detail on response structure, pagination, or ordering. This is useful but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a purpose statement. Every word 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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description covers what is listed, the project scope, and the downstream use of channel IDs. Since no output schema exists, an explicit return-format note would strengthen it, but the description is largely sufficient.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the input schema is fully descriptive. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notification destinations (channels)'), scopes to 'in the project', and enumerates channel types. The final clause ties the output to routing rules, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_destination or delete_destination.

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 sentence 'Use channel IDs to configure routing rules for monitors' gives a concrete usage context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of the fullest guidance.

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