list_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that profiles only override specific weights and that unspecified signals use defaults, clarifying the behavioral semantics of the output. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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 three paragraphs, with the first sentence being a clear purpose statement. The second paragraph provides beneficial context about use cases, and the third adds an important behavioral note. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value and it is well-structured.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does (list profiles) and what it returns (names and weight overrides). It also provides sufficient context about how profiles work and where to find default weights, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema (which is empty), but this is not needed. The conceptual explanation about profiles and weight overrides provides context for the tool's meaning.

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 'list all custom scoring profiles' and specifies the output: 'profile names and their custom weight overrides.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining profiles are custom weight sets for different use cases, and explicitly mentions 'Use show_defaults to see all 25 signals and their default weights,' differentiating from that sibling.

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 context on when to use profiles (for different scoring needs) and explicitly advises using 'show_defaults' to see default weights. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other list tools like 'list_allowlist'.

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