list_profiles

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 that each returned entry is a filesystem directory containing a CLAUDE.md, which tells the agent something about what gets returned, but says nothing about ordering, whether the list can be empty, permissions, or any side effects.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the explanatory gloss following it.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource and gives a concrete sense of what each result entry is. Only minor detail about the return shape is absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the resource itself.

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 (profiles) and adds a clarifying gloss: profiles are routing targets, each a directory with its own CLAUDE.md. It does not name or contrast with any of the sibling tools (ask_claude_code, handoff_to_terminal, open_in_claude_code), but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveyed via the phrase 'profiles work can be routed to', which hints this is a discovery step before routing/handoff work. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related sibling tools.

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