list_network_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the return behavior, but does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, read-only nature, or performance implications. For a simple read operation, minimal transparency is provided.

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 of 10 words, containing no fluff. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It could elaborate on 'CDP parameters' to clarify the term, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Slightly more context (e.g., 'CDP = Chrome DevTools Protocol') would improve completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed as schema coverage is 100% (vacuous).

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 'Return the mapping of profile name -> CDP parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('network profiles mapping'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_devices, list_interceptions) by focusing on network 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are many list tools among siblings, explicit when-to-use info is lacking.

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