get_profile_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so well: it conveys that this is a read-only preview ('before running the install command'), that it returns a 'complete list,' and that results are 'grouped by module' with 'install status for each.' The key safety-relevant trait — non-mutating — is clearly communicated even without annotations. It does not cover edge-case behavior like invalid profile names, but that is minor for a list operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: a front-loaded verb+resource statement, a behavioral detail sentence (grouping by module and install status), and a use-case sentence that frames when to call it. There is no repetition of schema content and no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple — one fully-documented required parameter and an output schema present, so return-value details are already specified elsewhere. The description adds the grouping behavior, install-status semantics, and preview framing. The only gap is undefined behavior for unknown profile names, which is minor for a non-mutating list operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the profile parameter already carries a description with concrete examples ('ctf', 'redteam', 'web', 'full'). The description's 'Given a profile name' merely reinforces the schema text and adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence, 'List every tool that a specific profile would install,' states a specific verb (list) and a clear resource (tools for a given profile). The phrase 'before running the install command' frames it as a preview, which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_tool and run_pipeline, and from check_installed which would report actual installation state rather than planned contents.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'This lets you see exactly what you get before running the install command.' This situates the tool in the workflow precisely. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as contrasting with check_installed to clarify that this shows planned rather than current installation state.

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