profiler_list_captures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by disclosing what each entry contains (size, time, existence of highlight/marker exports). It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, whether it recurses into subfolders, how results are ordered, or what happens when the folder is missing or empty.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource and appends the returned attributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: it lists .data captures and tells the agent what metadata comes back. Minor gaps remain around ordering, recursive scanning, and empty-folder behavior, but nothing blocking an agent from calling it correctly.

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% and the single optional 'folder' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default resolution order. The description adds no meaning beyond that and never mentions the folder argument, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("List") with a precise resource ("saved Unity Profiler captures (.data)"), plus the attributes returned (size, time, highlight/marker export presence). This makes it obviously an enumeration tool versus the analysis-oriented siblings (profiler_summary, profiler_top_markers, profiler_compare), though it never explicitly names a sibling or states the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling profiler_summary or profiler_compare on a chosen capture. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that an editor must be open), and no pointer to the alternative tools.

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