crm_get_all_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get all roles') with no side effects, and adds error recovery context (empty list leads to organization setup checks). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose potential permission requirements, though the simple getter nature makes these less critical. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the raw name.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses structured sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, Error Recovery) that each provide distinct value. No redundant filler; every sentence earns its place in guiding the agent.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the description is complete. It covers not just the action but also the surrounding workflow, integration with sibling tools, and failure handling. This gives the agent enough context to use the tool effectively in a larger task.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly focuses on workflow context rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add more.

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 clearly states 'Get all roles in the organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crm_get_role_details (specific role) and crm_get_all_profiles (profiles vs roles) by explicitly scoping to all 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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Use crm_get_all_profiles first'), next steps ('crm_get_role_details → crm_get_all_users → crm_update_role'), a common pattern, and error recovery instructions. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool relative to alternatives, including when not to use it (e.g., if needing details, use role details).

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