list_active_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It transparently states the operation is read-only ('Lists') and specifies the returned information (start and end times). It does not mention any side effects, but for a listing operation this is sufficient. It also implicitly communicates the elevation/security context, but does not detail permissions or limitations, which is a minor 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?

The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence names the exact purpose, and the second expands on output details. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is listed and the included fields (start and end times). It does not mention potential nuances like ordering, scope (e.g., only the user's own activations), or any prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation. The sibling context suggests some differentiation could be helpful, but it is not strictly required.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything (100%). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (active PIM roles with timing). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add further parameter details.

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 a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('currently active (elevated) PIM role assignments'), and adds detail on the output (roles activated with start/end times). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on active PIM roles, contrasting with list_eligible_roles (eligible not active) and list_quick_roles (quick roles, not PIM).

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 implies when to use it (when you need currently activated PIM roles) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks a direct statement like 'Use this instead of list_eligible_roles when you want only elevated roles you've activated.' For a tool surrounded by similar list/activation siblings, this guidance is not fully explicit.

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