octo_list_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately implies a read-only operation and specifies the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty lists, ordering, or any connection prerequisites, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word adds value, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose and the output format. The only minor gap is the lack of behavior when no profiles are running, but given the low complexity, the context is sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% and there is little to explain. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields, which is relevant even though there are no parameters to define.

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 action ('Get list') and the resource ('Octo Browser profiles') with a specific scope ('active (running)'). It also lists the output fields (UUID, name, ws_endpoint), which distinguishes it from broader siblings like octo_search_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?

The usage context is implied by 'active (running)', which tells the agent this is for currently running profiles. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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