list_app_control_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait — application and category names are resolved instead of raw ids — but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result size, or whether unset filters return everything.

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?

A single short clause with zero filler, and the name-resolution behavior is stated up front. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses a point only for under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the core intent but omits return-shape expectations and the read-only nature. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, vdom) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what happens when name is omitted or how vdom defaults interact.

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 fragment names the exact resource (app-control profiles) and states what each entry contains (their rules), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like add_app_control_rule or list_app_categories. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb ('List') and does no explicit sibling routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as add_app_control_rule or delete_app_control_rule. The only implicit signal is that it is a read operation, which the agent must infer from the name.

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