list_global_roles

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: availability varies by Semaphore edition and license, permission-gated, and some Community routes return 404 or an empty list rather than erroring — exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to interpret an empty response.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the operational caveat. The trailing 'GET /roles' endpoint is minor redundant noise but does not bloat the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description arguably should hint at what a role record contains or the shape of the returned list. It covers failure modes well but leaves return-value interpretation to the agent; adequate rather than complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is fully moot here and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list global roles'), which cleanly separates it from the single-item get_global_role and from project-scoped list_project_roles / list_available_project_roles. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 by the name and the edition/permission caveat; there is no explicit 'use this when you need X instead of list_project_roles'. The agent must infer the choice between the several role-listing siblings.

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