vibeside_list_network_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "List" naturally implies a read-only operation and the text discloses that bandwidth specs are included in the result, which is useful. However, it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether the profile set is static versus environment-dependent.

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 with no filler; the enumerated profile names are the one piece of information the schema cannot supply.

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 low-risk, one-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Only the lack of any when-to-use routing against vibeside_throttle_network keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is a fully documented enum with a default, so the schema already does the work. The phrase "with category filtering" only echoes the parameter without adding syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus specific resource ("network condition profiles") with concrete examples (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, DSL, Wi-Fi, Fiber, Satellite). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like vibeside_throttle_network and vibeside_benchmark_network, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before vibeside_throttle_network, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what the alternative is. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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