list_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists provisioning profiles with specific attributes and supports filtering. As a read-only listing operation, there is no contradiction or missing critical behavior, but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence that packs all essential information: the action (list), the resource (provisioning profiles), the returned data, and the filter option. No unnecessary words.

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, good schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers basic usage. It lists returned attributes and the filter. Potential gaps include pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter or how results are ordered, but these are minor. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description merely echoes the filter capability without adding new meaning or usage nuances. Baseline 3 applies as the description adds no extra value beyond the 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 clearly states it lists provisioning profiles and enumerates the attributes returned (name, platform, type, state, UUID, expiry), with bundle ID. It also specifies filtering by profile state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps or list_builds.

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 notes filtering by profile state, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_profiles vs list_certificates or list_devices). The context from sibling tools helps but is not explicit in the description.

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