list_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Search profiles' implies a read-only listing operation, which is reasonably clear, but the description does not mention output shape, result limits, default behaviors like include_abstract=false, or whether filters are exact or partial matches.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though it omits several parameters and usage details.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers only a subset of the filtering capabilities. There is no explanation of how query relates to name, what compatible_with does, how limit behaves, or what the response will contain.

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 adds meaning for type, 'name' (which is not an actual parameter), vendor, and source, but omits limit, compatible_with, and include_abstract, and does not explain the role of query. This is partial and slightly misleading due to 'name' not appearing in the schema.

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 a search action over profile resources and lists filtering dimensions: type, name, vendor, and source. It implies a listing/search tool distinct from singular operations like get_profile, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profile, diff_profiles, or find_children. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context to help an agent choose this tool over related profile tools.

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