Roles: permissions list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the output is an entity-by-entity matrix of granted actions, which tells the agent what it will actually receive and that the result is suitable for access diagnosis. It does not mention pagination or ordering for roles with many entities, a minor gap.

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, zero waste. The purpose and output shape are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description informally describes the return content (entity-by-entity action list) and the role_id source is covered by the schema. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge cases like pagination for large roles are unaddressed.

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 100% – the single role_id parameter is documented in the schema with a pointer to roles_list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List entity permissions for a role') and immediately clarifies the granularity: 'Shows, entity by entity, which actions (read, create, update, delete) a role grants.' This distinguishes it from roles_list (role inventory) and roles_permissions_add/remove (mutations) without needing to open 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions and names the sibling tools it precedes ('Use it before `roles_permissions_add` or `roles_permissions_remove`'), plus a second use case: diagnosing why a user can or cannot reach data. Alternatives are named rather than left to inference.

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