pve_list_roles

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. 'List all roles' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., list, array, paginated), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 'List all roles' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, leaving no wasted words. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of roles. It doesn't explain what 'roles' are in this context (e.g., user roles in Proxmox VE), the output format, or any behavioral details like error conditions. For a simple list tool, it's minimally adequate but misses important context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 'List all roles' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('roles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools (like list_users, list_groups) by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify what system or context these roles belong to (e.g., Proxmox VE), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when this tool is appropriate versus other role-related tools (like get_role or create_role), or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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