x80_profiles

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reports runnable profiles, accounts for backend differences, and warns about conditions that will trip up x80_open. This goes beyond simply restating the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, a direct call-to-action, and a concrete failure scenario. The most important guidance ('Call this first') is front-loaded and bolded, 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 read-only listing tool with strong annotations and a parameter-rich schema, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, explains why the tool exists, and warns about the key operational risk. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect without needing additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to given the schema coverage; the listed output fields help explain what the family/profile/probe parameters influence.

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 ('List') with a clearly bounded resource ('the machine profiles this installation can actually run') and previews the key fields returned. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like x80_files, x80_images, x80_probe, and the run tools.

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 bold 'Call this first' instruction gives explicit timing guidance, and the explanation about missing images or ROM/disk version mismatches causing x80_open failures clarifies why this preflight step matters. However, it does not state when to skip this tool or name alternative tools for related concerns.

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