pbi_list_roles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds a minor behavioral detail—filters are grouped by table ('por tabla')—but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is slightly more than nothing, but still limited.

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, front-loaded sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the 'source' parameter is left undocumented, and there is no explicit context about when this tool is the right choice among the many sibling tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has one optional parameter ('source') with a default value, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the 'source' parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid or how it affects the result. This is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('roles de seguridad (RLS)') and adds the scope 'sus filtros por tabla', clearly distinguishing it from other list tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_list_measures. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 usage in security-role contexts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_list_audit_rules or other listing tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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