list_profiles

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds the scope of profile kinds and a usage hint, but it does not disclose filtering behavior, return format, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most actionable usage note.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is found and one usage tip, but with 0% schema coverage it should do more to clarify the optional kind/query parameters and whether query is exact or substring-based.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the likely kind values ('machine, process, or filament profiles') and indicates that the query accepts exact names or paths, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it never explicitly ties these to the 'kind' and 'query' parameters, leaving the mapping inferential.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Find machine, process, or filament profiles.' It specifies the profile subtypes, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_options or get_settings, which also list/retrieve configuration information.

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?

It offers an implied usage context ('Use exact names or paths when importing models'), but it does not state when to use list_profiles versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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