rig_profiles_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that listing is scoped to the configured workspace, and says nothing about whether the result is names only or full profile payloads, or how large the list may be.

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?

One short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema, which is empty.

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 trivial zero-arg list operation the definition is close to sufficient, but with no output schema in play the description is the only place to say what a profile entry looks like (name, identifier, count). That return-value gap keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a clearly bounded resource ('saved semantic rig profiles') and a scope ('in the configured workspace'). An agent can distinguish it from rig_profile_read or rig_profile_create by singular/plural and verb form, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus rig_profile_read, rig_semantics, or the create variant, and no prerequisites or follow-up flow described. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'List'.

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