list_remote_profiles

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details the output profile fields (Name, Platform tag, Host:port, sidecar existence), explains platform filtering semantics, warns that the sidecar .profile file is REQUIRED, explains the default studio_root behavior, and notes profile reuse across Apple targets.

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 longer than average but well-structured with a clear opening statement, useful behavioral bullets, and an explicit Args section. Every section earns its place, though some details could be tightened without loss.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with no annotations, the description is complete: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral quirks are all covered. The presence of an output schema means return-format details are not required in the description.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: studio_root with an example path, optionality, and default behavior (highest-version install detected). This gives an agent everything needed to populate or omit the parameter correctly.

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 opens with the exact function: 'List PAServer Connection Profiles registered in this RAD Studio install.' It names a specific resource (PAServer connection profiles) and a clear action (list), and distinguishes it from related tools like build_dproj and paserver_info by explaining its scoped scope.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: profiles drive remote builds, build_dproj uses them automatically, and listing is useful when troubleshooting specific MSBuild Deploy errors like 'Missing profile name or 'No remote profile.' It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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