profiles_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates returned fields, defines status semantics ('running' vs 'idle'), and adds a privacy guarantee that proxy credentials are never returned. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the list is paginated, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the routing instruction immediately after. The middle field-by-field enumeration overlaps with the existing output schema, making it slightly redundant, but each clause still adds useful selection context.

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?

Complete for a zero-argument list tool: purpose, usage routing, return shape, status semantics, and privacy note are all present. Even though an output schema exists, the description's field summary and safety note ensure an agent can select and rely on it without opening the schema.

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 correctly implies no input is needed, though it does not explicitly say 'no arguments.'

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 and resource ('List every identity in this installation') plus the scope 'with its live status,' which distinguishes it from siblings like profile_start and profile_create. An agent can immediately tell this is the enumeration tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to find the exact name to pass to profile_start / profile_stop' and warns that names are case-sensitive. It names the downstream alternatives and the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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