pgroonga_list_normalization_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. The verb 'Discover' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, whether it requires special permissions, how it handles missing indexes, or any performance implications. It only states what it returns, lacking depth expected for an unannotated tool.

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 a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning ('Discover', 'trusted', 'index-level', 'normalizer chains', 'NormalizerTable dependencies') with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool returns (normalizer chains and dependencies) and implies a read-only discovery operation. However, it does not mention any context such as when to use this over sibling tools or whether it only applies to indexes created with specific options, leaving a small gap.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and the schema already confirms this.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and clearly identifies the resource ('trusted index-level normalizer chains and NormalizerTable dependencies'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pgroonga_normalize_text (which normalizes text) and pgroonga_validate_normalization_profile (which validates profiles).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent is left to infer that this is for listing normalization profiles with no exclusions or context.

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