rm_list_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope 'all configured user roles' but does not elaborate on return format, ordering, or pagination. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, this is adequate but not highly informative.

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 a single, short sentence containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the core action and resource are front-loaded immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description fully specifies what the tool does. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the annotations cover behavioral safety, making the definition complete for agent invocation.

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 tool accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter expectations.

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 'List all configured user roles' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all configured user roles'), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like rm_create_role, rm_update_role, and rm_delete_role, since it is the only role-listing tool among them.

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 clearly implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all roles, and there is no competing role-list sibling tool that would require exclusion guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the absence of alternatives makes the intended usage sufficiently clear.

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