list_profiles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination, scoping details, or any behavior beyond the basic listing.

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 one clear sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. It contains no filler or repeated information.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient to select and invoke it. It lacks only some behavioral context (e.g., explicit read-only/pagination disclosure), but nothing about inputs or return shape is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers invocation needs. With no parameters, there is nothing meaningful for the description to add, matching the baseline of 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and distinct resource ('provisioning profiles on the account'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_certificates and list_bundle_ids. The intent is immediately clear without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need the set of provisioning profiles on the current account. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling list tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit.

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