List private project profiles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the security boundary: it will not surface API keys, private file paths, provider requests, or run project-owner validation. That privacy/boundary context is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 terse fragments with zero filler, and the returned-data scope is placed first. It is compact and front-loaded, though the telegraphic fragment style is slightly cryptic for an agent encountering it cold.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value. It names categories of data that are absent but only vaguely gestures at what is actually returned ('local labels/default/auth-method availability'), leaving the concrete response shape under-specified. Adequate but with a clear gap for a listing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies; no schema semantics are missing or contradicted.

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 name/title ('list_accounts' / 'List private project profiles') and the phrase 'Local labels/default/auth-method availability only' together hint that this returns local account metadata, but the description itself is written as a list of exclusions rather than a positive statement of purpose. It never explicitly says it enumerates profiles or accounts, so the verb-resource pairing must be inferred from the name.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The exclusions ('No API keys... provider requests') imply a narrow, local-metadata use case, but the agent must infer that boundary rather than being told it.

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