list_feature_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the broad default behavior (returning all profile types for a solution), but does not mention permissions, pagination, response shape, or other operational traits.

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 core action and followed by the key optional-parameter behavior. There is no unnecessary text.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It could be slightly richer about return shape or pagination, but the core behavior is covered.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents both parameters including examples and defaults. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what happens when profile_type is absent, which goes beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("List UX 2.0 feature profiles") and clarifies that the tool returns all profile types when no profile_type is supplied. This distinguishes it from a singular get_feature_profile sibling implicitly, but does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

It provides conditional behavior for when profile_type is omitted, which implies how to use the parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_feature_profile or other profile-related siblings, nor does it list any exclusions.

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