List security roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying command ('pac admin list-roles') and that it uses the active pac auth profile, and clarifies child roles are optional. It doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only or note any permission requirements, though 'list' strongly implies it.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the purpose and scoping, then add the command and auth-profile context. No filler or repetition.

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 read-oriented list command, the description plus fully documented schema covers invocation: environment, optional child roles, profile, and background execution are all present. It doesn't describe return shape, but the output of a list-roles command is reasonably predictable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds only the contextual link to assignment tools and the optional-child-roles behavior, which is useful but not parameter-level detail.

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-resource pair ('list security roles in an environment') and adds the key semantic that these roles are exactly what cs_admin_assign_user and cs_admin_assign_group can grant. This distinguishes it from other admin list tools.

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?

It gives clear context: use when you need to enumerate the roles available to grant in an environment, optionally including child roles. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the assignment-tool tie-in routes the agent correctly.

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