rba_list_script_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention return format, error behavior (e.g., missing file), or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, some additional context would be helpful.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and target. No wasted words, perfectly scoped for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks details about return value or error scenarios. It is adequate for basic invocation but not rich enough for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('script profiles from the workspace profile JSON file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rba_list_script_capsules by explicitly naming the source and data type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as rba_run_script_profile or rba_list_script_capsules. The description merely states what it does without any context or exclusions.

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