config_list_routing_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description omits any details about pagination (max_results), region filtering, instance scoping, or the shape of results beyond what the schema already shows.

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 concise at a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, providing only the most basic action without supporting context, so it is not genuinely helpful.

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 list operation and the output schema is provided, which helps complete the picture. Still, the lack of usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details makes the description less complete than it could be for a tool with no annotations.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent gets no explanation of what 'instance_id', 'region', or 'max_results' represent in the context of routing profiles, nor how they affect the outcome.

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 'List routing profiles' uses a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource, making the core purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similarly named list tools like config_list_queues or list_instances, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_create_routing_profile or other config_list_* tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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