List configuration profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that it returns only names, ids, and dates, and adds context that this is config history with auto-generated snapshots. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a read-only list operation this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It avoids repetition and clearly communicates the tool's purpose, data source, and limitations.

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 is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It provides complete guidance on what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools.

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 schema covers the single optional parameter (service_id) completely, including its default behavior from the NITRADO_SERVICE_ID environment variable. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it lists saved configuration snapshots, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pz_get_config_profile and pz_diff_config_profile by noting those are for looking inside snapshots.

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?

It explicitly explains the tool's scope (returns only names, ids, dates) and directs users to pz_get_config_profile or pz_diff_config_profile when they need the contents of a snapshot. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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