List Scan Profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the tool operates on the 'active project,' requires project context, and changes behavior when scanProfileId is provided—returning a full configuration instead of a list. That is valuable beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing response envelopes or error cases.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, defines the domain concept, explains the parameter-driven alternative, and notes a prerequisite. It front-loads the primary action and avoids filler, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, how the optional parameter changes behavior, and the precondition about project context. It does not describe pagination or result fields, but those may be self-evident for a list operation. Overall it is complete enough for confident invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as an optional public ID (Guid) that returns the profile in full. The description reinforces this by saying 'Pass scanProfileId to get one profile with its full configuration instead,' which adds behavioral context about how the parameter alters the operation. This is a reasonable addition on top of an already clear 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the security scan profiles configured for the active project.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like list_scan_runs by focusing on profiles rather than runs, and it defines what a scan profile bundles. The optional single-profile behavior is also stated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides useful context by stating that a scan profile's public ID is required by run_security_scan, which tells an agent why they might call this tool. It also explains the parameter-driven alternative (pass scanProfileId to get a single full profile) and notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It doesn't explicitly name when to avoid this tool, but for this simple listing tool that exclusion is less critical.

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