list_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states a read-only listing behavior and the mapping content, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. However, it does not explain the effect of the agent_name parameter, whether results are filtered, or any other behavioral nuances.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable guidance. Every sentence 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description provides purpose plus usage guidance. However, the unexplained agent_name parameter and lack of explicit differentiation from list_agents leave meaningful gaps for a tool that should be trivially callable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single parameter agent_name or its default value. The agent is left to guess whether agent_name filters roles, selects a context, or has some other meaning. The description adds no semantic value for this parameter.

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') and resource ('configured roles') and clearly states the content: agent, model, and effort mappings. This distinguishes it from sibling list_agents, which presumably lists agents rather than roles.

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 gives concrete usage context: prefer specifying a role over an agent name when delegating tasks so model and effort configurations apply automatically. It implies this tool is the way to discover those roles, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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