inforcer_roles_list

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation without contradicting it, and adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: tenant identifiers are resolved to the numeric Client Tenant ID before the request. This is useful and non-obvious context for the agent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then providing the input contract. There is no filler or redundant framing, and the tenant resolution note is compact and valuable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with annotations covering read-only behavior and a fully documented schema, the description provides sufficient calling context. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit alternative pointer or pagination/return detail, but nothing essential is missing.

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% because the input schema already documents the accepted tenant identifier formats and the resolution behavior. The main description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List Entra ID directory role definitions for a tenant.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling list tools focused on users, groups, policies, baselines, and tenants, and the 'definitions' qualifier avoids ambiguity with role assignments.

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 tool's tenant-scoped purpose and accepted identifier formats are clear, so when to use it is reasonably implied. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.

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