list_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates return fields. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether it returns all profiles or a filtered set, or anything about ordering or pagination.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is structured as a colon-separated field list rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. It is concise to the point of under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and its field list is reasonable duplication. However, for an agent deciding between this and get_profile, the definition omits the listing scope and any usage context, leaving it only minimally 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 semantics to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 phrase 'Subjects available for analysis: id, kind and a short summary' identifies the resource (profiles/subjects) and its returned fields, but it reads as a noun phrase rather than a clear action. It never states that it lists all profiles, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_profile.

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 at all: no indication of whether this should be called before get_profile, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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