buddypress_list_xprofile_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List XProfile fields' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient - it doesn't describe the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just three words - 'List XProfile fields'. This is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a simple listing operation, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a list of fields. The description doesn't indicate what information is returned about each field, whether the list is filtered/sorted, or any other contextual details needed to use the tool effectively. For a listing operation with sibling alternatives, more context would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (profile_group_id for filtering, fetch_field_data for including data). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'List XProfile fields' clearly states the action (list) and resource (XProfile fields), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_field' or 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data' - it's vague about what specifically 'list' means versus 'get' operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are multiple related XProfile tools (get_xprofile_field, get_xprofile_data, list_xprofile_groups) but the description doesn't indicate when this listing operation is appropriate versus getting individual fields or data. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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