redmine_list_roles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it returns role IDs and names, but omits details on pagination, performance, or the safe read-only nature. It does not warn about any potential issues.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The '[Alpha]' prefix adds useful context. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant and could be more informative.

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 simple list tool with optional pagination parameters, the description covers the basic functionality and return value (role IDs and names). However, it lacks details on response structure, pagination behavior, or any caveats, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The input schema itself provides defaults and constraints, but the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 all roles in the Redmine instance, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('roles'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'redmine_get_role' which retrieves a single role.

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 implies usage for listing all roles but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'redmine_get_role' or provide guidance on when not to use this tool.

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