List Profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list) and resource, but does not mention that it is read-only, what fields are returned, or any other behavioral traits. For a list operation, this is minimal but not sufficient for full transparency.

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 a single, concise phrase that conveys the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, list operation, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the resource clearly, but it does not specify the return format or fields, which could be useful. However, for this trivial scope, the description suffices.

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, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies here since there are no parameters to elaborate on.

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 verb '列出' (list) and the resource 'profiles/*.json 可用模板' (available templates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, which deal with projects, not profile templates. The specific resource path adds clarity.

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 provides clear context by specifying the exact resource (profiles/*.json), making it obvious this tool is for listing profile templates rather than projects or scenes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the resource specification implicitly excludes alternatives.

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