List application PostgreSQL roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that – no note on result size, tenancy scoping, or whether roles of all backends or only the application's are returned.

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?

A single short sentence, so there is no wasted wording and it is trivially front-loaded. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by efficient editing – nothing actionable is conveyed.

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?

With no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and a bare one-line description, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to know what the call returns or how to scope it. It needs at least the cluster/namespace semantics and the relation to sibling role-listing tools.

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 0%: the required 'cluster' parameter has no description anywhere, and only the namespace $ref carries one. The description does not compensate by explaining what cluster means or how scoping by namespace narrows the role list, leaving a required parameter unexplained.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as postgres_role_get, database_roles_list, and postgres_grants_list in the same namespace, the definition gives no signal about which to pick for a given intent.

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