remote_profile_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds genuinely new context by noting that secrets are redacted, which tells an agent not to expect credentials back; it does not cover behavior on a missing profile, but the output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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 ten-word sentence that front-loads the operation and ends with the most important caveat (secrets redacted). Every word earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials, but the sole required parameter remains unexplained and there is no guidance on error behavior for an unknown profile. Adequate, with clear remaining gaps.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it only implicitly conveys that 'name' identifies the profile to fetch; it does not state the expected format, case sensitivity, or whether the name is a session/host alias. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource ('one saved connection profile'), and the word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling remote_profile_list. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one saved connection profile' suggests fetching a known profile by identifier, and by contrast remote_profile_list would be used to discover names. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. profile must exist), and no mention of alternatives.

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