bookshelf_list_qualityprofile

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the trivial fact that it lists items. It does not disclose pagination, filtering, return format, or any edge cases. Since it adds no value beyond the annotation, and the description is minimal, score 2.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no substantive content beyond repeating the tool name, and thus fails to earn its place. Score 2.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema, readOnly annotation), the description still lacks sufficient context to distinguish it from similar list tools in the sibling set. It does not explain what a quality profile is, nor differentiate from 'list_qualitydefinition'. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently select it. Score 2.

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, and the input schema is empty. According to the scoring rule, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information since there are none. Score 4.

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 'List qualityprofile' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'bookshelf_list_qualityprofile'. It provides no additional detail about what a quality profile is or how this list operation differs from other list operations like 'list_qualitydefinition' or 'get_qualityprofile'. This is a tautology, scoring 2.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions under which listing quality profiles would be appropriate, nor does it contrast with sibling tools. Score 2.

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