get_all_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes what the tool returns, not any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a tool that relies on the description for behavioral cues, this is a significant gap.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and output, noting the companion tool, and explaining usage. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundancy.

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 explains what the tool returns (roles, counts, samples) and the 'unknown' bucket. For a listing tool with two parameters, this is sufficient. Minor missing details like ordering or performance characteristics do not severely impact completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that 'Sections without metadata.role are bucketed under unknown' and that sample_size=0 omits samples. This additional semantics helps the agent understand the parameters' impact beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 'every distinct role classification across the repo' with per-role counts and samples, and identifies itself as a companion to get_all_tags. The verb 'list' and resource 'role classifications' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique output.

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 explicitly says 'Use to discover what roles exist before constructing a `role=` or `profile=` query.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. The reference to get_all_tags as a companion implies a relationship but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it's slightly incomplete.

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