ListProjectRoles

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. The description only states the action ('获取' - get) without mentioning any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), whether it requires specific permissions, if results are paginated (implied by PageSize/PageNumber parameters but not described), rate limits, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取工作空间角色详情列表') that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying '详情' or adding context) without losing conciseness, but as-is, it's appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, pagination behavior), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and details on output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't add enough value to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and use cases.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in Chinese (e.g., ProjectId as 'DataWorks工作空间的ID', Type with enum-like values 'UserCustom' and 'System'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to, given the comprehensive schema.

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 '获取工作空间角色详情列表' (Get workspace role details list) states the basic purpose with a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('工作空间角色详情列表' - workspace role details list). However, it's vague about what '详情' (details) specifically includes and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProjectRole' (singular) or 'ListProjectMembers' (members vs. roles). The description is functional but lacks specificity about the scope of returned information.

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. There are several sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'GetProjectRole' for a single role, 'ListProjectMembers' for members with roles, 'GrantMemberProjectRoles' for assignment), but the description doesn't mention any of these or clarify this tool's specific use case (e.g., listing all roles vs. filtered roles). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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