list_system_languages_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the API endpoint (GET) which is consistent but not additional insight. For a simple list operation, the description does not need to explain much beyond what annotations provide, so it meets the minimum bar without adding extra behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: a single clause plus the API endpoint. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. For a no-parameter list tool, this is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

While the description is complete for a simple no-parameter list operation, it lacks any contextual distinction from the sibling list_system_languages. It does not explain what a 'languages profile' is, nor does it mention any output characteristics beyond what the output schema (not shown) might cover. An agent might need more context to choose between the two language-related list tools, so the description falls slightly short of full completeness.

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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters that do not exist.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a precise resource ('languages profiles'), and the resource is distinct from the sibling list_system_languages, which likely lists languages themselves. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 the closely related list_system_languages sibling. The description gives no context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent is left to infer usage based solely on the name, which is insufficient when a similar tool exists.

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