list_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the verb 'List' implies no mutation. It adds useful context about what is returned (rule counts, current selection), but lacks explicit statements about side-effects or edge cases.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is efficient with no redundant details.

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 low complexity, an output schema, and zero parameters, the description covers the essential details: what it lists and what extra information it shows. It could mention read-only behavior explicitly, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%. No parameter explanation is needed; the description adds no parameter detail, but the baseline of 4 for 0 parameters is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource ('all Karabiner-Elements profiles') plus a distinct detail ('with their rule counts'). It also states it shows the currently selected profile, making the tool's purpose clear and differentiating it from the sibling list_rules (which lists rules).

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 explicitly points to select_profile as the tool to switch the active profile, implying list_profiles is for reviewing profiles rather than changing them. It does not provide exclusions for other siblings, but for a simple listing tool, this guidance is sufficient.

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