get-role

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 states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but does not mention potential errors (e.g., for invalid role names), response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists all key information types returned. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no redundant or vague language. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and output content well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response structure. It is complete enough for basic use but could benefit from additional context to fully guide an agent, especially without annotations.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('role' and 'verbose'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of role names or details on what 'verbose' includes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific ARIA role'), listing the exact types of information returned (description, properties, states, required context, accessibility requirements). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-roles' (which lists roles) or 'get-role-hierarchy' (which focuses on hierarchy) by emphasizing comprehensive details for 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 when detailed information about a specific ARIA role is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-roles' (for finding roles) or 'validate-role-attributes' (for validation). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent in selecting among similar tools.

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