tie_profiles

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only list operation, which is safe. Without annotations, it adds valuable context about profile scoping. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or that authentication is required, but the verb 'list' implies no side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences, both substantive. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds critical information: what the tool lists and why it's important for other tools.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description indicates the tool returns id and name, which is sufficient for a list tool. It also provides the crucial context about profile scoping, making the tool's purpose and usage complete.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 it lists security profiles with id and name. It also explains the relevance of profiles for scoping IoE/IoA data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on or with profiles.

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?

It explains that the console has a selected profile not exposed by the API, and that users must explicitly pass the profile_id to other tools. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to obtain profile IDs) and implicit guidance on not to assume a default profile.

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