list_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'Lists' but does not describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific debugger states, potential rate limits, or the format of the output. For a tool in a debugger context with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Lists all available targets') and adds clarifying details without waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and context, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for a simple listing operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like debugger state requirements or output format, which could be important in a debugging context. With no annotations, the description does not fully compensate for missing behavioral context, making it minimally 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by specifying what is listed ('targets') and providing examples ('WebView threads, AppService threads, etc.'), which clarifies the resource semantics beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description enhances understanding appropriately.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available targets'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes the resource by mentioning examples like 'WebView threads, AppService threads, etc.' and the context 'in the connected debugger'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'switch_target', which might involve target selection rather than listing, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'switch_target' (for changing targets) or 'list_scripts' (for listing scripts). Without such context, users may struggle to choose the right tool in the debugger environment.

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