list_v_belt_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'built-in' adds that this returns standard catalog data. However, it does not disclose any requirements (e.g., session, document context), return format, or other behavioral traits. The minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple list tool but not comprehensive.

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, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It leads with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. Perfectly concise for what it covers.

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 parameters (family, standard_system) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the effect of the parameters, clarify what 'groove profiles' returns (strings, objects, units), or set expectations about the response. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description does not mention 'family' or 'standard_system' at all, leaving the agent without any clue about how these parameters filter results. This is a critical gap for effective usage.

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 specific action ('List'), the resource ('built-in classical or narrow-wedge V-belt groove profiles'), and the filtering by family. It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_poly_v_profiles and resolve_v_belt_profile, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for poly-V profiles one should use list_poly_v_profiles, or that for resolving a specific profile one should use resolve_v_belt_profile. The description leaves the selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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