gitchanger_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior and no mutation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it is non-destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the returned details contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part earns its place by naming the action, the resource, and the scope.

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 listing tool this is mostly adequate, but without an output schema the description does not clarify the default return shape or how the 'verbose' flag changes the details. It leaves some ambiguity about what 'configured profiles with their details' includes by default.

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 schema fully documents the sole optional 'verbose' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how verbose changes the output, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List all configured Git profiles in GitChanger'. It is clear this is a read/list operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby discovery tools such as gitchanger_status or gitchanger_mcp_get.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison against alternatives. The use case is only implied by 'List all configured Git profiles'.

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