get_role_assignments

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

Discloses that it returns a JSON list of role assignments with scope information and implies read-only behavior. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it covers the main behavior but doesn't detail authentication or implicit project context.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points for functions and a separate returns section, but slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format and use cases. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but for a straightforward get operation, it is sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already covers all inputs. The description adds context by specifying the project is 'current' (implied from authentication), which clarifies the implicit parameter.

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 gets role assignments for the current project, covering specific aspects like project-level and domain-level permissions and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on access control, not general resource listing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for permission information, access control queries, or security auditing. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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