list_rotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only restates that profiles are listed. It says nothing about ordering, scope (per-host vs global), whether authentication or an active session is required, or that the operation is non-destructive — all inferable only from the verb 'Elenca'.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the verb-resource pair is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotation coverage, but there is no wasted text.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the return values need no explanation, so the minimum bar is low and the sentence clears it. However, with no annotations and no sibling routing, the definition is only barely sufficient for an agent choosing between this and the other rotation 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 no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. Nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Elenca') with a specific resource ('profili di rotazione salvati'), so the agent can tell it enumerates saved rotation profiles. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related add_rotation/remove_rotation siblings or flag the read-only scope relative to them.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as add_rotation or remove_rotation, which sit directly next to this tool in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to those mutation tools.

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