list_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, and it names the returned fields. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences, directly stating the purpose and the follow-up action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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?

It explains the output fields and the next step (using pid with usage tools). Since there is no output schema, this gives enough context. It lacks details like pagination or filtering, but for a simple list it is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no input parameter meaning beyond the schema (there is nothing to document). The baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool lists Circle profiles and explicitly mentions the output fields (pid, name, type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (usage, status) by focusing on profile data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a direct usage hint: 'Use the pid with the usage tools,' indicating when this tool is needed (to obtain a pid for subsequent usage calls). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but implies the workflow, so guidance is adequate.

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