Governance Describe Role

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

The description adds a crucial implementation detail: the input role name must match exactly, even if quoted, specifically referencing 'a list row's quoted_name'. This behavioral constraint adds significant value beyond the general read-only hint provided in the annotations.

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 brief and directly addresses the functional constraints ('A name in double quotes... must match exactly'). Every sentence serves to clarify the behavior of the input parameter.

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 that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and idempotent, and its function is clear, it is largely complete. The description successfully clarifies the specific input formatting requirement which is the only major behavioral gap left to fill.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must carry all weight. It specifies that the input 'role_name' is case/format sensitive by requiring an exact match with potential quoting, which is a critical semantic detail not conveyed by the type definition.

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 explicitly states the function: 'Describe role properties and assigned grants.' This is highly specific (verb + resource + detail) and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like `governance_list_roles` or `governance_list_grants_to_user`.

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 tool provides some contextual guidance regarding the naming convention (quotes must match exactly), but it doesn't specify functional usage constraints, success criteria, or explicitly state when it should be preferred over alternatives like `governance_list_grants_to_role`.

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