rba_run_script_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and execution behavior itself. It only mentions the source file for the profile but does not explain what running a profile does—whether it executes Lua code, targets clients, has side effects, or returns a result. This is insufficient for an execution tool.

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 with no wasted words, which is good for structure. However, it is under-specified—conciseness here comes at the expense of necessary detail, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone description.

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 tool that executes a script profile, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of the 'target' parameter, mention what happens after execution, or provide any context about expected outcomes or errors. With two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It implicitly clarifies that 'name' selects the script profile, but it completely omits any explanation of 'target' (all/first/integer), which is a significant gap given the parameter is optional but potentially important for execution scope.

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 ('Run') and resource ('named script profile') with a source location ('workspace profile JSON file'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named sibling tools like rba_run_preset or rba_run_script_capsule, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is 'run a profile,' but there is no context about selecting this over other execution tools such as rba_run_preset or rba_send_lua.

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