listTimeRanges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention pagination, result format, or behavior when no profiles exist. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the explanatory second sentence earns its place by defining the resource's role in the broader system.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides useful domain context and credential requirements. However, it does not mention the return value or how to obtain a valid siteId, which an agent might need to call it correctly in context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a site' which gives context for the siteId parameter, but it does not explain where to obtain the siteId, whether it is required, or what values are valid. The single parameter is simple enough that this partial guidance is merely adequate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List time range profiles for a site.' It also clarifies what these profiles are and how they relate to PoE schedules, WLAN schedules, and ACL rules, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like listPoeSchedules or listFirewallAcls.

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 clear context for when this tool matters: time range profiles are the reusable primitive that other schedule and rule types bind to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain explanation is enough to guide an agent toward this tool when time range profile IDs are needed.

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