fossa_list_roles

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

Adds substantial behavioral context: the three sections and their meanings, the permission-delegation rule, default to 'roles' only, per-request cost, and lack of pagination. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint 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 two well-structured sentences: the first gives the overall purpose, the second details sections and behaviors. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 the annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary context: operation type, parameters with defaults, cost, pagination, and security-related assignability rules. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only offers an enum for 'sections' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully explains each enum value ('roles', 'permissions', 'assignable'), their meaning, and the default, completely compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool lists roles, the permission catalog, and assignable roles, using the specific verb 'List'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fossa_manage_role by being read-only and focused on role listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing roles and permissions) and explains the assignable subset and default behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the read-only nature and detailed sections make usage conditions apparent.

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