list_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: exactly 14 profiles, the osint-to-full size range, and that each is a curated module set. The 'Returns' sentence overlaps the output schema and is somewhat redundant.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and size, and the supporting sentences are short. The trailing 'Returns:' block restates what the earlier sentence ('Shows module count, tool count, and install command') already established, which is mild duplication.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the description supplies scope, size, and content shape. It is essentially complete for a zero-param read tool, with the only gap being guidance on when to prefer it over adjacent discovery tools.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no filtering options.

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 all 14 available installation profiles') with explicit scope and quantitative detail. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_profile_tools or recommend_install, which deal with a single profile or a recommendation rather than the full catalog.

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?

Usage is implied by the discovery framing but never stated: it does not say when to call this versus get_profile_tools, recommend_install, or check_installed. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, though the context is reasonably inferable for a list tool.

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