List Roles For A Company User

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the result includes project roles, pagination behavior, and metadata. No contradictions with annotations.

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 5 sentences, covering purpose, usage, parameters, and endpoint details. It is efficient and front-loaded with key info, though it includes extra endpoint specification that may be considered redundant.

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 explains the return type (paginated JSON array) and pagination metadata, but lacks detail on the structure of Directory records or role objects. Given no output schema, this leaves some gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reiterates required parameters and pagination control but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it returns the list of roles for a specified user, including project roles. It uses specific verb and resource ('returns the list of Roles for the specified User'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling functions like 'list_company_roles' or other role-related tools, missing some distinction.

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 usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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