list_customer_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns details like OS version and user email, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or if there are any rate limits or pagination. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 basic purpose and output details. However, it does not address prerequisites like authentication (given sibling auth tools) or whether the customerId is required or optional. The output schema exists but is not fully described. Overall, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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%, with a clear description of the customerId parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'for the customer', which is already implied by the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'Lists Chrome browser profiles for the customer' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_detectors or list_org_units by naming the specific resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools, but the resource is unique enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when authentication is needed via cep_auth or when to use other list tools. The description only states what the tool does, without any context for selection.

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