whatsms_admin_get_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and discloses optional pagination. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a simple read-only list tool, this is minimal but adequate.

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: 'List all roles/functions in the WhatSMS system with optional pagination'. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No redundant or vague language is present.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect from the response. While 'List' implies the return of roles, it does not describe the structure (e.g., array of role objects) or how pagination is controlled or returned. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 is empty (no defined parameters), so the description adds value by mentioning 'optional pagination', which hints that the tool supports pagination parameters despite the schema not defining them. It does not specify exact parameter names or types, but it provides meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all roles/functions in the WhatSMS system'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('roles/functions'), and the scope ('all') is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete roles.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to retrieve all roles/functions. It mentions optional pagination, which indicates a use case for large result sets. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, it is clear that this is the canonical read operation for roles, and no sibling tool serves this exact purpose.

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