List Hermes profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable scoping constraint that contents are NOT exposed (only 'surface presence'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't describe output shape, pagination, or failure behavior — though the output schema partially compensates.

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, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a meaningful scope qualifier (negative scope). Zero wasted words. It earns its length by communicating both the positive action and the explicit boundary of what it does not touch.

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 tool has an output schema, strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), 100% schema parameter coverage, and zero required parameters — a relatively simple list operation. The description handles the key ambiguity (what's excluded vs included) with the negative scope statement. Parenthetical package of annotations + output schema + description feels sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 all three parameters (home, profile, toolkit_root) documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level nuance beyond the schema. The 'Must resolve under configured allowed roots' constraints are already in the schema descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what's structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool lists local Hermes profiles and profile-local surface presence, with a specific negative scope ('without exposing memory, skill, plugin, or config contents'). It distinguishes intent well among the many hermes_* siblings by emphasizing the 'surface presence' focus. Could be slightly more specific about what 'surface presence' means, but the verb+resource+scope is clear.

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 notes the tool is for list/inspection purposes but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like hermes_config_summary, hermes_skills_list, or hermes_status_overview. The negative scope ('without exposing memory/skill/plugin/config contents') implicitly guides toward choosing this over content-rich siblings, but no sibling is named and no explicit exclusions are stated.

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