List project roles

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses two important behavioral constraints: group members are returned as a group, not expanded into accounts, and role names are tenant-controlled data that should be treated as data, not instructions. It also surfaces the permission requirement, which annotations do not express.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds distinct value: role listing, role membership expansion, permission requirement, group behavior, and prompt-injection caution. There is no repetition of schema fields or wasted wording.

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 description covers the dual-mode behavior, permission prerequisites, group-member semantics, and the non-instructional nature of role names. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape or edge cases (e.g., no roles, unauthorized project) would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the roleId omission/pass distinction and the project key/id format. The tool description adds context about roles and permission semantics but does not materially improve parameter-level understanding beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific action on a specific resource: listing a project's roles and, optionally, the accounts/groups within one role. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like jira_list_projects and jira_get_project. The 'who can do what here' framing reinforces the tool's purpose in one concise phrase.

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 explicitly explains when to omit roleId (list roles) versus when to pass it (get members of one role), and states the required 'Administer projects' permission. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the usage context is clear enough for selection and invocation.

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