List Agent Profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a scoping detail ('backend-owned') and examples, which helps set expectations, but it does not discuss return format, pagination, or authorization. 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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses examples to clarify scope without adding unnecessary bulk. 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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gaps are lack of explicit mention of authentication requirements or the practical significance of 'backend-owned,' but these do not hinder correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three optional parameters (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('backend-owned Cloudeval Agent Profiles') with concrete examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool agent_profiles_get, but the 'List' verb inherently distinguishes it from a get-single operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_profiles_get or other listing tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and examples alone.

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