Runn: list roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list roles' and gives a use case; it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination defaults, rate limits, or return format. For a list tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('List roles') and immediately clarifies the purpose in a parenthetical. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 list operation, the description plus well-documented schema suffice for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what a response looks like or any behavioral edge cases (e.g., capping of fetchAll). The description is adequate but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the API.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, cursor, fetchAll) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('roles'), and adds a clear use case: 'for resolving roleId values used in assignments/actuals'. This distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools (people, projects, etc.) and makes its intent obvious.

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 parenthetical provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need roleId values for assignments/actuals. While no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, the tool is unique among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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