get_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the name: read-only semantics ('Lecture seule') and low cost ('1 appel API'). It says nothing about permissions/auth requirements or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with the resource first and the operational traits second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and what the returned items contain. Without an output schema, a slightly fuller statement of the return shape would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical naming of returned fields adds a bit of value even though no input semantics exist.

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 and resource ('Liste les rôles du club') and even names the returned fields ('identifiant et nom'). It is clear what the tool does, but it makes no attempt to position itself against sibling list tools such as get_users or get_signups.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the fact that it returns roles; an agent can infer it should be called when role data is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, but none of the siblings expose role data, so the risk of misselection is low.

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