list_profiles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe, side-effect-free read by using 'List' and discloses what categories of state come back (profiles, login states, running browsers), but says nothing about cost, permissions, whether it triggers browser launches, or how empty results appear.

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 zero filler; every clause (profiles, login states, running browsers) adds distinct information about what is returned.

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 parameterless, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, naming the three kinds of state returned is close to sufficient. A note on ordering, emptiness, or how login state is represented would close the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain any inputs and correctly focuses on output content instead.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local profiles') and enumerates the extra data returned: login states and running browsers. That is more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (none of add_site/open/exec/snap/close/remember/memory overlaps, so the cost of that omission is small).

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite or ordering hint (e.g. "call before open to pick a profile"), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the fact that it lists existing state.

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