validate_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the tool's actions (checks roles, identifies missing ones, recommends mandatory roles), which gives some transparency about its read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies data, requires permissions, or what happens on invalid input.

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 sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and behavior without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Проверяет корректность...') and details the specific checks performed.

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 adequately explains the tool's input (set of roles) and output (which roles exist, which missing, mandatory role recommendations) despite lacking an output schema. It is self-contained for a single-parameter validation tool, though it omits details about error handling or permission requirements.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'roles' parameter. The description adds context by specifying that roles are 1C roles and that they are checked against a matrix, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'array of role names'.

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 validates a set of 1C roles against the role matrix, identifying missing roles and recommending mandatory ones. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roles_matrix and suggest_profile_by_job.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to check the correctness of roles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. No explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternative should be used in other cases.

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