list_vendor_role_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the endpoint and a direct translation, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or returns any particular format. This is insufficient for safe tool selection.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one short phrase and the endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, which is appropriate for a simple list operation.

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 description omits essential context that an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool. It does not explain what the returned data represents, how it relates to vendor roles and actions, or what makes it different from similar list tools. This is a minimal but inadequate description for a one-parameter list endpoint.

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 fully describes the single parameter role_id with a Chinese label '角色 ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource (get vendor role permissions) and includes the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings like list_vendor_actions or list_vendor_roles, so it lacks full differentiation.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is a significant gap given the presence of many related vendor list tools.

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