openpanel_list_profiles

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions pagination behavior but omits critical safety/behavioral context: whether this is read-only (implied but not confirmed), what filtering capabilities are actually supported, maximum page limits, or data volume considerations.

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?

Highly concise (single sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata cruft that adds no semantic value for tool selection. The brevity is inappropriate given the complete lack of schema documentation for 5 parameters.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 5 parameters including pagination controls, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of return structure, available sort fields, or filtering syntax, leaving the agent to guess at critical usage patterns.

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 coverage is 0%—none of the 5 parameters have descriptions. The description fails to compensate: it does not explain what 'site' or 'project_id' represent (despite being required), nor what values 'sort_by' accepts. Only 'pagination' is implicitly mapped to limit/offset.

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 clear verb+resource ('List user profiles') and mentions capabilities (filtering, pagination). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'openpanel_search_profiles', leaving ambiguity about when to use list versus search.

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?

Mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' as features but provides no decision criteria for when to use this tool versus 'openpanel_search_profiles' or other profile-related tools. No guidance on required project scoping beyond the schema.

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