list_build_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that the list is filtered by server-side permissions ('allowed to execute'), which is not apparent from the annotations alone. No contradiction 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then scopes it with permission context and examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what is listed, the server-side scope, the permission filtering, and gives examples. It could optionally mention that the returned profiles are usable as inputs to run_build, but that is inferable from sibling tools and not essential for basic usage.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which are irrelevant here. It adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('server-side build profiles'), and specifies the scope ('that this MCP instance is allowed to execute') with concrete examples ('debug or release'). This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like 'run_build' which executes builds rather than listing them.

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: you'd list profiles to know which ones are allowed before running a build. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use run_build to execute a profile') or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The 'allowed to execute' phrasing hints at a prerequisite roll but stops short of explicit direction.

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