list_eligible_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing ('Lists', 'Returns') and specifies the returned attributes (role names, scopes, assignment type). It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a parameterless list operation that 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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return shape provided in the second sentence. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 parameterless, read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and return fields completely. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing semantic to add; the baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing or describing parameters.

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?

States a precise verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('eligible PIM roles that can be activated in Azure'), and names the returned attributes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_active_roles, which would cover active rather than eligible 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?

Usage context is implied by 'eligible ... that can be activated': an agent would call this before activating a role. However, the description never names alternatives such as list_active_roles or activate_pim_roles, nor states conditions for when not to use it.

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