remote_profile_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond the annotations: secrets are redacted in the output, so the agent knows it cannot read credentials from this tool. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or the behavior when a filter matches nothing.

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 semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the redaction note and the filters. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema available, so return-value detail is not required here. The main remaining gap is filter matching semantics, which matters because the schema supplies no parameter descriptions at all.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only restates the parameter names as "filter by protocol or tag." It does not say whether matching is exact or case-insensitive, whether both filters combine with AND, or what valid protocol values look like. That is a partial compensation, not a full one.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List saved profiles") and adds two scoping facts: secrets are redacted, and results can be narrowed by protocol or tag. That separates it from the mutation siblings (remote_profile_create/update/delete) and from remote_profile_get. It never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: the word "optionally" tells the agent that both filters are non-mandatory, which is useful. There is no statement about when to prefer this over remote_profile_get for a single profile, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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