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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stating scope=application, effect=read, and the possible error codes (internalError, invalidParams), but it does not describe the returned profile structure or ordering. With annotations carrying most of the load, this is an adequate 3.

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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose, followed by tidy scope/effect/error metadata. The 'Completion: completed. Undo: none.' boilerplate is slightly redundant for a pure read, but overall there is minimal waste.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description supplies scope, effect, and error behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation would help but is not strictly required given the tool's simplicity.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description adds scope ('application') which is relevant context, though not parameter-level semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List existing profiles'), so an agent can immediately tell this is a read that enumerates all Anki profiles. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like profiles_getActive or profiles_switch, but the enumerating action makes the distinction obvious in practice.

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 implies when to use it (when you need the set of existing profiles) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names the sibling calls (getActive, switch) that might be alternatives. Usage context is only inferable.

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