list_messaging_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 discloses pagination and filtering capabilities (page, page_size, filter_name) and the return type (Dict), but it omits critical behavioral details like the required 'request' object wrapper, error handling, authentication needs, or side effects. Furthermore, the argument list (page, page_size, filter_name) does not mention that the schema requires a single 'request' object, creating ambiguity about the actual input format.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the Returns line is a bit terse ('Dict[str, Any]') without elaboration. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 description covers the core purpose and key parameters, but it lacks context about the required 'request' object, potential errors, and the structure of the returned data. With no output schema or annotations, more detail is needed to fully guide an agent. The sibling tool names suggest related operations, but no guidance on how this tool fits into the broader workflow is provided.

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 provides zero descriptions for properties, so the description's Args section is the primary source of parameter semantics. It explains page (integer, defaults to 1), page_size (integer, defaults to 20), and filter_name (optional, filter by name), which adds meaning beyond the generic 'request' object in the schema. However, it fails to clarify that these are likely nested inside the required 'request' object, and filter_name lacks a type, so the semantics are incomplete.

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 opens with 'List messaging profiles,' which is a specific verb ('List') followed by the resource ('messaging profiles'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/get/update_messaging_profile. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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 through its purpose ('List messaging profiles'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no context is given about filtering or comparison with similar list tools like list_phone_numbers or list_connections.

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