teramind_list_monitoring_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantive work: it clarifies that the result is metadata about monitoring scope, not monitored content, and notes the private flag. It does not address pagination, authorization, or errors, but for a zero-parameter list operation the core behavior and semantic boundary are disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the action and resource front-loaded and a clarifying boundary in the second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description explains what a monitoring profile is, which attributes are present (data types, agents, privacy), and what it is not (content). This is enough for an agent to call it correctly, though exact response formatting is not specified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but there are none to document; it instead helps by describing what the returned profiles contain.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List monitoring profiles') and immediately defines what a monitoring profile is, differentiating it from sibling list tools for computers, agents, departments, alerts, and policies. The clarification that this is metadata and never captured content removes ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 the tool is for retrieving profile configuration metadata and explicitly says it is not for captured content, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over a related list tool. Usage context is inferable from the resource, not explicitly routed.

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