list_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a list/read operation which is implied safe, but the description adds no context about pagination response shape, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond the profile_id schema note. The schema's profile_id note does partially compensate for auth-related disclosure.

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 short sentence (5 words in Japanese), which is efficient. However, it's under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The conciseness is appropriate but the substance is thin.

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 list tool with good schema coverage and no annotations, the description is barely adequate. It confirms the resource and action but doesn't describe return format (no output schema exists), pagination behavior beyond offset/limit params, or how filtering interacts with ordering. The 6-parameter complexity plus absent output schema suggests more context would help.

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%, so all 6 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The profile_id parameter description adds particularly valuable semantics about API-key scoping and required conditions that go beyond basic field names. The description itself adds nothing, but the schema carries the weight well, so the baseline of 3 rises slightly due to the rich profile_id note.

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 "プロフィール一覧を取得" (Retrieve profile list) clearly states the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_personas or list_custom_entries, though the name itself is fairly self-explanatory. It's clear but minimal.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance. The profile_id parameter description adds meaningful context about account-scoped vs profile-scoped API keys and required scenarios, which is valuable usage direction. But there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned relative to sibling tools.

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