librus_profiles

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

The description conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and that it depends on the 'configured Librus Portal account,' which is useful. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not elaborate on possible return formats, errors, or whether multiple accounts may be returned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first states the primary purpose; the second gives an essential workflow tidbit. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what the tool lists and how the return value should be used. It does not describe the return structure in detail, but that is a minor omission given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter details to clarify. A baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'List Librus Synergia accounts linked to the configured Librus Portal account.' It also explicitly names the sibling librus_get as the consumer of the returned data, which distinguishes it from related tools.

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 gives direct workflow guidance: 'Use the returned login with librus_get.' This tells an agent exactly what to do with the result, though it does not explicitly cover when not to use the tool or mention alternate scenarios.

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