profiles_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination semantics despite limit/offset parameters, no statement of what "configured root" means or where it comes from, and no indication of permissions or result shape. The single clause about the root is the only behavioral context offered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is redundant. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 return values need not be explained, but that is the only gap covered. For a four-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool, the description leaves out parameter meaning, pagination behavior, and the distinction between a "configured root" and the required directory argument.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It mentions a "root" that does not even match the required parameter name "directory," and says nothing about query, limit or offset semantics, leaving every parameter's meaning to be inferred from its name alone.

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?

"Discover printer, filament and process profiles" names a verb and enumerates the resource types, so the agent knows roughly what it operates on. However, "discover" is ambiguous between listing, searching and resolving, and the description does nothing to separate it from siblings such as profile_resolve, host_presets_list or settings_catalog.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus profile_resolve, host_presets_list or settings_catalog, all of which plausibly overlap. The only hint is "below a configured root," which does not tell the agent what condition should select this tool.

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