profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (list of profiles with ID and description) and gives examples, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a read-only list, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 fairly concise, front-loading the main purpose and then providing examples. It is structured with a clear sentence followed by a bulleted list. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It clearly states it returns a list of profiles with ID and description, and provides concrete examples. This is complete for a simple list tool with no parameters.

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 value by listing example profiles and explaining their practical use, which helps the agent understand the context beyond the schema.

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 'List all available coding standards profiles' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_context by explaining how profiles are used in conjunction, and provides examples of available 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 explains when to use the tool (to list profiles) and how to use the results (via .corbat.json or get_context auto-detection). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other siblings like search or validate, but the context is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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