List power profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which clearly informs the agent that this tool will not modify state. It also describes the output action ('list' and 'mark the active one'), which is adequate for a simple read operation. No hidden behaviors are omitted, though it does not detail output formatting or error cases, which are minor for this tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every word earns its place: the action, the object, and the safety attribute are all present. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the read-only qualifier.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke this tool and understand what it will do: list profiles and identify the active one. No additional context is necessary for correct use, and the read-only note covers safety.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). As per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics needed.

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: 'List profiles and mark the active one.' It names the resource (profiles) and the specific behavior (marking active), which distinguishes it from the sibling powerprofiles_set. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name and title.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus powerprofiles_set or other alternatives. It implies a read-only query use case via 'Read-only,' but does not explicitly state 'to change profiles, use powerprofiles_set' or any exclusions. Some guidance is inherent but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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