config_profiles_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful response-shape context: the xray config is deliberately omitted from the default payload, which tells the agent what it will and won't receive. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or payload size for what is presumably a large list.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The inclusion/exclusion scoping is front-loaded and the routing information follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does disclose the key contents (inbounds and nodes) and the key exclusion (xray config). It omits ordering, pagination, and volume expectations for a list endpoint, which is a minor but real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema text already explains that full returns the raw panel response including config and rawInbound. The description's 'or full=true' merely re-frames that same fact as a use case, adding little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list config profiles) and immediately scopes what is included (inbounds and nodes) and what is not (the xray config). It differentiates itself from the sibling config_profiles_get and from its own full=true mode, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for a single profile ('use config_profiles_get for one profile') and the alternative mode for getting the omitted xray config ('or full=true'). The condition that selects each alternative is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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