list_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It makes the read-only nature clear with 'List' and explicitly discloses what is returned: profiles with descriptions, module lists, tool counts, and install commands. It does not mention error cases, but for a zero-parameter listing tool, no significant hidden behavior is omitted.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and stays reasonably compact. There is minor redundancy between 'Shows module count, tool count, and install command' and the later 'Returns' block, but the additional context about profile range and use cases 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and an existing output schema. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns, including a helpful example of the range from 'osint' to 'full'. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter choices to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on output content rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all 14 available installation profiles with details.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tools by naming profiles as the resource, not tools, and emphasizes 'each profile is a curated set of modules.'

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need an overview of installation profiles, their module counts, tool counts, and install commands. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_profile_tools or list_tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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