superset_user_get_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful internal behavior: the ordered fallback chain (/me/roles/ then JWT-sub user lookup then /security/roles/) and return type. It does not, however, mention auth/permission requirements, failure behavior, or performance cost of the fallback listing all roles.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by the fallback detail and a Returns block. It is slightly verbose in endpoint enumeration but every sentence is informative.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and a general return shape ('a dictionary with user role information'). Since no output schema exists, the return description is a bit vague but adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the baseline. Score reflects the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 specific verb+resource+scope ('Get roles for the current user'), which is clear and distinct in intent from siblings like superset_user_get_current. However it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby user/current sibling, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 explains internal mechanics but gives no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., superset_user_get_current) or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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