list_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'Marks the currently active profile' and references a specific storage location, adding context about its data source. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 concise but dense, conveying key info in a few sentences with clear structure. The version number and legacy fallback add value, though slightly verbose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides comprehensive context: what profiles are, where they live (with legacy fallback), and that it marks the active profile. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context about profile attributes and storage, but there are no parameter details to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'List all available identity profiles' and names the resource (identity profiles), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_profile which changes the active profile. It also explains what each profile contains, reinforcing its scope.

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 the use case: enumerating available identity profiles and identifying the active one. It provides context about where profiles are stored (SSOT path and legacy fallback), but doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Clear enough given the tool's simple role.

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