profile_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. Saying 'List' conveys a non-destructive read operation, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, result limits beyond pagination, or any constraints such as whether deleted/hidden profiles are excluded.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, resource, and two key capabilities without redundancy.

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 simple list tool the description is functionally adequate, but it omits any statement about return values, which matters because no output schema is provided. It also does not contrast with sibling list tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and documents all seven optional parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds only a generic mention of pagination and filtering, providing no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema.

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 begins with the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'browser profiles', making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as profile_create, profile_update, and proxy_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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving profiles and supports pagination/filtering, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the straightforward verb.

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