mix_list_plugin_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bundled' qualifier, indicating these are built-in profiles rather than user-created ones, which is a modest addition of context. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a single optional parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is largely complete. The only gap is that the jargon 'parameter-role adapters' and 'processing recipes' is unexplained, which an agent might not fully parse without additional context.

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 parameter 'category' is fully described in the schema ('Optional exact profile category'). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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') and names the resource ('bundled parameter-role adapters and processing recipes'). The terminology is somewhat jargony, but it clearly denotes a distinct resource type. It differentiates from siblings like plugins_list_available or plugins_list_presets through the 'parameter-role adapters' and 'processing recipes' framing, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. No conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of what category values might be valid or when the optional filter should be applied. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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