list_controller_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'accepted by high-level controller tools' reasonably convey a read-only catalog lookup, and the description does not suggest any destructive behavior. However, it does not clarify whether it reads live controller state or returns a static schema-defined set of values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple, no-required-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the subject, the scope, and the intended relationship to high-level controller tools. It could add an explicit note about side effects or the absence of robot-state interaction, but the current text 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention command_id or idempotency_key at all. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory and both are optional, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 names the exact resource ('gripper and mobile-base profiles') and the action ('List'), and scopes them to 'accepted by high-level controller tools.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_available_robots or list_environments.

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 this tool: before calling high-level controller tools such as set_gripper_width or set_mobile_base_velocity, to know which profiles are valid. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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