List Execution Profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real domain context: walletconnect routes through the existing popup path while agent/agent-eoa are local delegated vs raw execution profiles. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, whether the list is static or dynamic, or how profiles relate to the default-profile siblings.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The second sentence is dense but each clause conveys distinct profile semantics rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only signal about what comes back. It names the three profile categories but never describes the return shape (names, identifiers, ordering, whether defaults are flagged), leaving an agent to guess before calling.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List WalletChan execution profiles') and then defines what each profile category means. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_default_execution_profile or set_default_execution_profile, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 what the profile types are, but not when an agent should call this tool versus get_default_execution_profile, set_default_execution_profile, or the agent_* wallet tools. No prerequisites or conditions for use are given.

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