list_quality_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' and the content description make the operation's read-only, non-mutating nature clear, and the downstream ID use is stated. Pagination/ordering are not mentioned, but they are not material for a zero-parameter profile listing.

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 contain exactly the needed information: what is listed, what fields are included, and why an agent needs it. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description conveys the return contents and the practical caller context. An agent can decide when to call it and what to do with the resulting IDs without additional documentation.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description instead adds useful output meaning (cutoff, allowed qualities, IDs consumed by other tools), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List quality profiles', and immediately specifies the output content ('cutoff and allowed qualities'). It is easily distinguished from sibling get_quality_profile (list vs. single) and list_quality_definitions (profiles vs. definitions).

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 second sentence gives concrete usage guidance: add_movie and update_movie require one of these IDs, so an agent knows to call this tool before those mutations. It does not explicitly contrast with get_quality_profile, but the list/get sibling pair makes that distinction inferable.

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