tie_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple list statement by explaining the data scoping relationship and the need for explicit profile_id, which is important context. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', the listing verb and context make the safe-read behavior clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return fields (id+name), the reason the tool exists, and how to use the result. It tells the user exactly why they need this tool and what to do with the output, making it complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the significance of profile_id that consumers of this tool will use, even though it doesn't need to describe any parameters for this tool itself.

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 security profiles with their id and name. It provides a specific verb and resource, and it stands apart from sibling tools by being the only one focused on profiles, which are foundational for other 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 explains that IoE/IoA data is scoped to a profile and that the console's selected profile is not exposed via API, so users must pass the correct profile_id explicitly to other tools. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to apply its results.

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