List ReSpec MCP Profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists profiles from specific file sources, which implies a read-only operation. While it does not explicitly say it does not modify data, the verb 'list' and the context make the behavior clear. Additional context about the return format or side effects would improve it.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and data sources. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no complexity), the description provides the essential information: the sources of the profiles. It does not mention the return format or that the list may be empty, but for a list operation this is sufficient. A 5 would require more detail about the output structure.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, so this score reflects the minimum viable for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing repo-local ReSpec MCP profiles from specific sources (respec-mcp.config.json and respec-mcp/profiles/*.json). It uses a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (build, preflight, scaffold, validate), which perform different actions.

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 the tool is used to list profiles, and given the sibling tools are all for different operations (building, preflighting, scaffolding, validating), there is no ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or provide any exclusion criteria, but the context makes it clear.

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