quality_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('List'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, require no permissions, or discuss rate limits. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what quality profiles are, what criteria the recommendations are based on, or the format of the response. An agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 1 required parameter ('service') with no description (0% coverage). The description adds no semantic meaning to this parameter—it does not explain what values are valid (e.g., service names) or how it affects the results. The phrase 'with recommendations' pertains to output, not parameter usage.

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 quality profiles, with the additional qualifier 'with recommendations', which indicates the output includes recommendations. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services', lacking explicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., 'list_services', 'add_new') but no comparison is made.

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