List browser profiles

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world, so the description appropriately adds the behavioral trait that each item carries a full fingerprint, implying heavy payloads. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail return structure or pagination specifics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then a practical caution. Every word earns its place, with 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?

Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It mentions the fingerprint payload but not the return shape or which filtering options exist. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 only 42% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only broadly mentions pagination, search, and filters, and specifies the limit default. It does not explain filters like tags, folders, statuses, or sorting, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists browser profiles and mentions key capabilities (pagination, full-text search, filters). This distinguishes it from similar tools like list_profiles_cursor by implying page-based pagination, and the verb-resource pair is explicit.

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 clear usage context: the tool supports pagination, search, and filters, and warns about the large payload of full fingerprints, advising a small limit. It does not explicitly mention when to use list_profiles_cursor as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is pragmatic and clear.

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