list_api_access_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. 'List' is an explicit read-only signal, and the definition of what is being listed adds behavioral clarity. It does not mention auth requirements or response format, but for a zero-parameter read-only list, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with an em-dash definition that adds meaningful context without extra words. 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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It defines what the resource is and what operation is performed. A slightly more explicit statement about returning all profiles could push it to 5, but the current level is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and does not need to add parameter details.

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 begins with the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource 'API access profiles', then adds a defining gloss ('scope/auth bindings between API clients and collections') that distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_api_clients and list_api_collections.

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 em-dash definition clarifies the context: this tool is for viewing the bindings between clients and collections. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the clear naming and definition make the intended usage obvious.

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