List Profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only list operation by saying it 'returns' profile data, which is transparent for a simple list tool. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, ordering, or access scope beyond 'held' profiles.

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 one concise sentence in Japanese, directly stating the operation and output contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, the description is almost complete: it identifies the operation, the resource, and the returned fields. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying relationship to sibling search, but for such a simple tool this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, and the description adds useful information about what is returned: names and sizes.

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 the action and resource: it returns a list of held profiles with their names and sizes. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like search, import_profile, fetch_page, and bake_profile, which suggest different operations.

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 that the tool should be used when an agent needs an overview of existing profiles, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only an implied use case.

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