List Kanban profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds a notable behavioral detail—'writing redacted receipts'—which implies side effects (writes audit logs) that partially contradict the readOnlyHint. This side-effect is disclosed but not contextualized (what are receipts, where do they go?). For a list tool with strong annotations, the burden is low, but the receipt-writing detail deserves more explanation.

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?

Single compact sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Typed GET ... wrapper' implementation detail is minor noise, and 'writing redacted receipts' adds a useful side-effect disclosure. Reasonably efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Tool is simple (2 optional params, no nested objects, output schema present). The description covers the basic function and the receipt side-effect. However, the ambiguity with hermes_profiles_list and the unexplained 'redacted receipts' mechanism create gaps. Given the schema and annotations richness, this is borderline adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% with both limit and offset fully documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; description does no harm but also no additional value for params.

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?

Description states it lists installed Hermes profiles with descriptions, with a specific verb+resource (lists profiles). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling hermes_profiles_list, which could be confused with this kanban-specific profiles list. The 'Typed GET wrapper' phrasing is implementation detail, not purpose.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling hermes_profiles_list exists, suggesting a potential distinction (kanban profiles vs general profiles), but the description offers no differentiation or when-to-use guidance. OpenWorldHint is set but not leveraged.

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