hwp_profile_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it handles it well. It explicitly promises no Hancom launch, no document read, and no profile write, and clarifies that the returned data are only labels and configuration flags, never values. This effectively communicates a read-only, non-destructive behavior profile.

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 compact and well-structured. The primary behavior is stated in the first sentence, and the second paragraph adds necessary boundary conditions without repetition or extraneous detail.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema already present, the description covers invocation expectations, data scope, and non-effects. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. The description does add semantic value by clarifying the scope of the listing: labels and configured status, not values. The 0-parameter baseline of 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') and a precise resource ('configured local profile keys'), and adds a hard constraint ('without returning any profile value'). The negative clauses ('does not open Hancom, read a document, or write a profile') separate it from the read/write sibling tools even though no sibling is named.

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 clearly establishes exclusions: it is not for opening Hancom, reading a document, or writing a profile, and if actual profile values are needed this tool is inappropriate because it only exposes labels and configured status. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for obtaining profile values, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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