get_provisioning_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that sensitive/large fields (binary, metaData, certificateThumbPrints, provisionedDevices, connectApiKeyId) are omitted from the response, and describes the return format. This adds significant transparency beyond basic read operation knowledge.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. It is concise yet informative, front-loading the main purpose and then providing details. Every sentence adds value.

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 the single optional parameter, the lack of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, filtering, omitted fields, return format, and provides examples, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the app_id parameter: 'Optional app (bundle) ID to filter provisioning profiles (e.g., com.example.app).' This adds meaning beyond the type definition.

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 tool's purpose: to get provisioning profiles for the organization, with optional filtering by app ID. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings which target other entities like bundle identifiers, build profiles, etc.

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 explains when to use the tool (to retrieve provisioning profiles) and provides filtering guidance via the app_id parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tool names imply different resource types, making usage context clear.

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