list_export_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scope ('current PBR material node'); it says nothing about when profiles are unavailable, empty results, or whether an unset material_id resolves differently, but with annotations this lower bar is acceptable.

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 efficient sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though it leaves the parameter behavior unexplained.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented everywhere, the description does not compensate enough to let an agent invoke it confidently without guessing material_id semantics.

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 single parameter material_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no semantics at all. The phrase 'current PBR material node' hints that omitting material_id falls back to the current node, but the description never states what the id refers to or how it relates to the node/graph ids used by sibling tools.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (export profiles) with a clear scope qualifier: profiles supported by the current PBR material node. An agent can tell this apart from export_material or list_material_recipes without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: enumerating supported export profiles before choosing one for export_material. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative tool to route to.

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