list_professions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any side effects. The name 'list' implies a safe read, but the description itself does not confirm this.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core content efficiently, though the phrasing 'what agents can do' is slightly roundabout rather than a direct operational statement.

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?

Given the simple zero-parameter interface, the description conveys the key content: professions, steps, and boundaries. However, it does not explain the return format or how an agent should interpret the result, and with no output schema or annotations, this missing detail leaves the description only partially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Что агенты умеют делать: профессии, их шаги и границы' clarifies that the tool exposes available professions along with their steps and constraints. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish it from siblings like create_order or run_step, though it lacks an explicit verb stating 'list'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives. The only hint is the subject matter, which implies it is for discovering capabilities, but this is not stated.

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