List Company Roles

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral edge case: the Employee role has id -1 and is accepted by create_timelog but not by strict-positive validation, which explains the validation design and avoids a caller error.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences: purpose, downstream use, and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no content is repeated from the schema.

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-only list tool with one optional parameter, it explains the resource, its main consumer (timelog creation), and the important id=-1 exception. It does not spell out the output shape or verbosity-level differences, but those gaps are minor given the default and the no-output-schema context.

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 sole parameter (verbosity) is 100% covered by the schema, including its enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema-covers-it baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a concrete resource ('Global role definitions for the company') and the exact relationship to kaiten_create_timelog.roleId, so the agent knows this lists company-wide role definitions. The reference to role IDs further distinguishes this list tool from the many card/board/user list siblings.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to obtain company role definitions and valid roleId values for timelog creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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