list_profile_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only listing nature, the returned ordering by channel and message type, and the merge with defaults. It also surfaces the API-key/account requirement and clarifies that start_login is not sufficient. It doesn't specify failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is solid.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence output summary, and an access note. Each line adds information, and there is no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, its scope, and its auth prerequisite. It might benefit from an example or explicit error behavior, but nothing is critically missing for invoking it with a valid profile_id.

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 schema already documents profile_id as a required string with the description 'Profile ID', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description only repeats that this is about a profile and adds no format, source, or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies because 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 clear verb and resource: 'List all templates for a profile.' It adds output structure ('organized by channel and message type, merged with defaults') that distinguishes it from generic template tools such as list_templates and get_default_templates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides concrete access prerequisites: 'needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again.' It also explicitly rules out start_login as a way to open this tool. Yet it does not state when to prefer this over list_templates or get_default_templates, so no sibling routing is given.

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