listNotificationProfiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It partially explains parameter effects (e.g., isGlobal for device-specific vs global) and hints at response structure via 'hasAssociated key', but fails to state that the tool is a read-only operation, does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, and lacks overall behavioral context.

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 brief but contains typos ('Proflies', 'Co'), inconsistent formatting, and a list structure that could be improved. It is under 150 words and somewhat scannable, but the sloppiness reduces effectiveness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no output schema. The description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (a list of notification profiles) or provide a summary of its functionality. Given the complexity of filtering by type and device association, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying the effect of isGlobal and deviceName, and partially enumerating profileFilter values (though truncated). However, it largely duplicates schema content and does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool name 'listNotificationProfiles' clearly indicates listing notification profiles. The description reinforces this by explaining parameters for listing device-specific or global profiles. However, the description starts with the name itself and lacks an explicit statement of the tool's overall purpose, relying on the name and parameter context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'getNotificationProfileS' or 'associateNotificationProfiles'. It does not specify any prerequisites or scenarios where listing is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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