List Tool Profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (listing profiles) and hints at context (profiles narrow the visible toolset), but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines with a clear alternative. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete—it explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no structured data to rely on.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, but it adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available routing profiles with their descriptions'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling gateway_set_profile by indicating that one lists profiles while the other switches 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?

The description explicitly provides when to use this tool ('List all available routing profiles') and when to use an alternative ('Use gateway_set_profile to switch to a profile'), including a named sibling tool and example use cases like 'coding' or 'research'. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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