roasr_list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (clients with context fields) but does not explicitly disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all clients, or any edge cases. The lack of any explicit 'returns a list' or side-effect statement leaves room for ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and includes useful field details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple 0-parameter list tool, the description is adequate: it identifies the output (clients with their context) and the intended use case. It doesn't specify the return format (e.g., array of objects), but that is often implied. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the response could improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds useful context about the returned fields, which is more than necessary given the zero parameter count. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource (workspace clients) and the specific context fields (name, niche, margin, status). Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'List', the tool name and the description make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like roasr_list_findings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 gives an implied use case—'for analysis scoped to a specific client'—but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion criteria or comparison to other tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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