Roles: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned field set and the underlying access model (one role per user; roles grant read/create/update/delete per entity), which is genuine added context. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or pagination.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed before the explanatory model and the sibling pointer. The middle sentence on the access model is slightly beyond the minimum needed to call the tool, but it earns its place by explaining what 'role' means.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields is necessary and it does so. No parameters exist to document and annotations cover safety, so the definition is nearly complete; only result-size/pagination behavior is left unstated, which is minor for a roles list.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no parameter prose and instead spends its words on scope and the domain model.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List all roles') plus the exact returned fields (id, name, description, active flag), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling roles_permissions_list by naming what that tool covers instead. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly to `roles_permissions_list` for per-role permission detail, which is clear alternative guidance. It does not state any when-not condition (e.g. prefer a filtered lookup for large sets), so it falls just short of the top band.

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