list_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that roles are reusable system prompts, that the persona is prepended to the prompt, and that built-in roles can be supplemented or overridden via `role_dirs`. This is meaningful context beyond the simple act of listing, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary conceptual context in a compact second sentence. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what roles are, how to use their ids, and how additional roles can be introduced, giving an agent everything needed to decide when to call this tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining the semantics of the `role` parameter used in sibling tools, even though that parameter is not part of this tool's input schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list available role personas with their id, name, and description. It clearly frames the tool as a listing operation for the `role` parameter and distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings like `delegate`, `consensus`, and `debate`.

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 explains that returned role ids are meant to be passed as `role="<id>"` to `delegate`, `consensus`, or `debate`, effectively telling the agent when this listing is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but there are no competing list-role alternatives among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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