profile_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists profiles but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all iTerm2 profiles') and adds essential details ('with their GUIDs and names'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool does and what data it returns. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like read-only nature or output format, but the output schema likely covers return values, keeping it adequate.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by stating it lists 'all' profiles without filtering. This aligns perfectly with the schema, earning a baseline 4 for parameterless tools.

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 specific action ('List all iTerm2 profiles') and the resources returned ('with their GUIDs and names'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'profile_apply' and 'profile_show' by focusing on listing rather than applying or displaying individual profiles, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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. While it implies usage for retrieving profile information, it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose other tools like 'profile_show' for specific profiles, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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