ftrack_list_security_roles

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. 'List all security roles' implies a read-only operation but does not mention permissions, whether the list is exhaustive, ordering, or return format. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 is entirely front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could benefit from mentioning what a security role is or what data is returned, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered (empty). The description correctly aligns with the fact that no parameters are needed. This is the baseline case for a no-parameter tool, and the description adds sufficient clarity by noting 'all'.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'security roles' and scope 'all'. It is distinct from sibling tools that operate on other entities, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this to get all roles without filtering'. The description states only the action.

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