list_qualityprofile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, but no additional behavioral context such as pagination, default limits, or response details beyond what the output schema would convey.

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: two lines, no filler, with the essential action and endpoint front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 availability of an output schema (which explains return values), zero parameters, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description is essentially complete. It would benefit from an explicit 'returns all quality profiles' phrase, but the endpoint and name already imply the collection scope.

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?

With zero parametershare and schema description coverage effectively complete, there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 for a 0-parameter tool is appropriate; the description adds no specific param detail but none 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 states a clear action ('Read') and resource ('QualityProfile'), and the included GET endpoint indicates this is a collection-level read. It is distinct from get_qualityprofile_by_id by virtue of the name and endpoint, but the description itself does not explicitly say it lists all quality profiles rather than retrieving one.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_qualityprofile_by_id or list_qualityprofile_schema. The description only states the endpoint and reading action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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