config_profile_get_config_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing beyond the HTTP method — no auth requirements, no pagination, no volume or ordering characteristics of the returned profile list. The URL string is the only concrete behavioral hint.

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?

It is very short, which is good, but the second half is auto-generated boilerplate ('Tags: Config Profiles Controller') that conveys no information to an agent. The one useful line is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable but padded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it omits anything an agent would need — return shape, whether the list is filtered or paginated, and how it relates to the by-uuid and tags variants. It is not adequate for a listing endpoint in this dense tool family.

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 per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain and nothing for the description to compensate for. The empty schema is unambiguous.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get config profiles'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as config_profile_get_config_profile_by_uuid, config_profile_get_tags, or config_profile_get_computed_config_profile_by_uuid — an agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this list endpoint over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of what the returned set represents, and no mention of alternatives among the large config_profile sibling group. The HTTP verb 'GET' is the only implicit usage signal.

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