list_quality_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'list's, indicating a read-only operation, but lacks disclosure of any behavioral traits such as caching, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Minimal transparency for a simple list operation.

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, concise sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and the output schema exists (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does and its context for use.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. According to guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing param details.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool lists task-aware quality profiles accepted by preview comparison tools. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('quality profiles'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like preview runs or feedback tags.

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 implies usage context ('accepted by preview comparison tools') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not scenarios. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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