list_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and describes the output as roles with their permissions. It lacks details on pagination or authorization scope, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only list, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the behavioral note and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (roles and permissions) and its scope (workspace). For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is complete—nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies as per the rubric.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'roles defined in this workspace,' and also specifies that it returns the permissions each role grants. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_members or list_pages by its focus on roles and permissions.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding who can do what' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though no direct sibling exists for listing roles.

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