list_aws_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading local existence and allowed regions, implying local file system access, but does not mention authentication requirements, network calls, or potential errors. For a straightforward list operation this is adequate, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately states what is listed. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the return content: profiles, local existence, and allowed regions. No additional context seems necessary for this simple 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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets expectations.

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 'allowlisted AWS profiles', checks 'whether they exist locally', and shows 'allowed regions'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which all deal with Elasticsearch cluster/domain/index operations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the distinct domain (AWS profiles vs Elasticsearch), the context makes it obvious. Still, no direct when-not or alternative suggestions are given.

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