Claude-Profile listen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool outputs server count, inheritance, and file paths, which tells the agent what to expect from the return value. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and specifies the key output information without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 is simple (1 optional param, read-only), annotations cover safety, and the description conveys the essential output. The schema documents the parameter default. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that is more of a usage guideline issue. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 single optional parameter profileRoot is fully documented in the schema with a description and default (~/.claude/profiles). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb ('liest' = reads) and resource ('lokalen Claude-Profile' = local Claude profiles), and it specifies what is shown (server count, inheritance, file paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_local_servers or list_stacks, which target different resources.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like controlcenter_list_local_servers or controlcenter_list_stacks. Usage context is implied from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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