list_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and 'configured' indicates it reads existing configuration. However, it does not mention ordering, empty results, errors, or any prerequisites, though for a simple list tool these gaps are minor.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, and illustrative examples without any wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema available. The description fully covers what the tool does and what kind of results to expect, so an agent has enough information 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, so the schema provides no semantics to clarify. The description is not required to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. The examples add useful context about the kind of values that will be returned.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('configured queue profile names') and provides concrete examples ('movies', 'series'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queue and list_indexers.

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: call this when you need the set of known queue profile names. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any related workflow such as using the returned names as valid inputs to other queue-related tools.

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