profiles_list

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful security-relevant disclosure beyond the annotations: credentials are deliberately not exposed, and only 'configured' profiles are returned. It stops short of describing ordering or the empty-list case, which the output schema presumably handles.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the result set, with the credential constraint appended as a qualifier.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned (profile names) and what is not (credentials). It could note whether profiles come from local config or the remote account, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not invent any argument vocabulary.

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: lists configured profile names, and adds the scope qualifier that credentials are withheld. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools like auth_check, org_get, or server_info.

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 intent is implied – use this to discover which profiles exist before doing credential-dependent work – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as auth_check.

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