get_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Show') and adds useful diagnostic context about permission details, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, what authentication/permissions are required, or how errors like an invalid role_id are handled.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, then the diagnostic use case, and finally the parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are already defined. The description covers purpose, use case, and parameter sourcing. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of access requirements or error conditions leaves a small gap in completeness.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and integer type, but the description adds key guidance: 'role_id: role ID (use list_roles).' This explains the meaning of the parameter and how to obtain a valid value, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool 'shows a role's details, including the full list of granted permissions,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_roles or get_group by focusing on detailed role information and permissions.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding why an operation is being refused, before trying again.' This provides context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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