list-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 states it lists roles with optional filtering, but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of role names, objects with details), pagination, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all ARIA roles') and adds necessary detail about optional filtering and categories. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and behavioral context, which are important for a tool with no annotations. However, the purpose and basic usage are clear, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description adds minimal value by listing the categories, which mostly repeats the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured data.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'all ARIA roles', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get-role' (singular) and 'search-roles' (search vs list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-widget-roles' or 'list-landmarks' which are more specific variants.

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 by mentioning optional filtering by category, which suggests when to use this tool for filtered vs unfiltered listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list-widget-roles' (which lists only widget roles) or 'search-roles' (which might support more complex queries), leaving some ambiguity.

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