Get a role guide

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the important edge case: an unmatched or missing role returns the role list rather than an error, and it explicitly calls that 'a fact, not an error'. It also states the text is identical to the MCP prompt and the topopt://roles/<id> resource, which prevents an agent from double-fetching.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alias/fallback details are valuable. The middle paragraph about clients running sub-agents is contextually interesting but marginal filler for an agent trying to call the tool.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what the tool returns, what a playbook contains, how aliases resolve, and what happens on a miss. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter, role, is fully explained: accepted values, case-insensitivity, agent-name aliases (cad-engineer), resource-URI form (topopt://roles/cad), and the null default behavior. This is exactly the compensation the low coverage requires.

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 it returns role playbooks for the five topopt team roles and enumerates them explicitly, so the resource is unambiguous. The verb is implicit ('Playbooks for...') rather than a direct 'get/return', but it is still far from tautological and is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool listed.

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 explains the role-vs-agent model and clarifies that one agent can play all five roles, which is real usage context. It also spells out the discovery path when no role is supplied. What it lacks is an explicit statement of when in a workflow an agent should call this versus jumping straight to other tools.

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