List security roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the underlying command ('pac admin list-roles') and that it runs under the active pac auth profile, which hints at both read-only behavior and authorization context. However, it never explicitly states the operation is non-destructive, nor does it describe the shape or volume of the returned roles.

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 compact clause packs the resource, the optional scope, the downstream consumer, and the execution mechanism with no filler. It is front-loaded, though the key verb is omitted and the second sentence is implementation detail.

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 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description should say what a returned role looks like and which parameters (environment, profile) are effectively needed. It explains only the child-role option and the CLI invocation, leaving the return contract unstated.

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% (all 7 params documented, including includeChildRoles as 'Include child roles'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'optionally including child roles' largely restates the schema rather than adding format or cost nuance.

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 states the resource ('Security roles in an environment') and the optional scope ('optionally including child roles'), and ties it to a concrete downstream use ('what cs_admin_assign_user and cs_admin_assign_group can grant'), which separates it from the assign siblings. The verb is only implicit (title supplies 'List'), so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before cs_admin_assign_user or cs_admin_assign_group. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no exclusion of an alternative listing tool.

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