Get my profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds meaningful context by implying no user identifier is needed (results are scoped to the caller), but it says nothing about authentication requirements or result size beyond that. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

The tool is trivial (zero required parameters), the schema fully documents both optional parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and scope adequately, though it could note the 'current user' scoping relies on session context.

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 both parameters (fields, format) have enum descriptions in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (list of profiles) and scopes it to the current user, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It doesn't differentiate from analogous siblings like glpi_get_my_entities, but no sibling competes for the same 'profiles' resource, so ambiguity is low.

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, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to any alternative tool. The only implied context is that it returns the calling user's own profiles, which the agent must infer from the phrase 'current user'.

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