list_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only listing operation covering all security roles and enumerates the returned data dimensions. It does not mention permissions needed or potential response size, but the list-only nature is transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire purpose and scope without redundant words. The list of included items is compact and clearly organized.

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?

The description covers what data is returned, but with no output schema or annotations, it omits return format, pagination, and prerequisite details such as session validity. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some invocation context unspecified.

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 only parameter, sessionId, is required but not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how to obtain or use the session identifier, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List every security role') and specifies exactly what is included: model permission, members, RLS, and OLS entries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or modify roles.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_role_permission, add_role, or run_dax_as_role. There is no explicit 'use this for...' or 'use X instead' direction.

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