list_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific items returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as response format, ordering, or potential caveats. The mention of 'configured-but-unverified' hints at a status nuance but is not elaborated.

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?

A single sentence that is informative and front-loaded with the action 'List'. It efficiently enumerates the items without redundancy, though the compound phrase 'configured-but-unverified guardrail expectation' is a bit dense. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main content but leaves some ambiguity. The final listed item, 'configured-but-unverified guardrail expectation', is vague and could benefit from clarification. Without an output schema, it would be helpful to specify the shape of the response, which is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema is empty and covered at 100%. The description correctly focuses on the output content instead.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resources: approved model/provider profiles, privacy policy, server/plugin versions, and configured-but-unverified guardrail expectation. This is a precise enumeration that distinguishes it from sibling task- and artifact-oriented tools without ambiguity.

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 merely states what it lists, with no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for checking configuration state or that task-specific status should use get_task_status instead.

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