get_roles_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a matrix, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, response size, or performance characteristics. The description is too high-level to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and a clear use case. It avoids extraneous words and is well-structured, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and usage context, but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it lacks details about the exact structure of the matrix, how filters affect the result, and any size or performance implications. It is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool but not fully complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for search_keyword, filter_requires_transport, and filter_requires_accounting. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action: 'Возвращает полную матрицу ролей RBAC для 1С:БИТ.ФИНАНС' (Returns the full RBAC roles matrix for 1C:BIT.FINANCE). It identifies the resource (RBAC roles matrix) and its scope (full matrix), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_role that focus on searching rather than returning the complete matrix.

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 explicit usage context: 'Используйте для изучения доступных бизнес-функций и их маппинга на роли 1С' (Use to study available business functions and their mapping to 1C roles). This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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