list_project_roles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results depend on edition, license, and permissions, and some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. That caveat is exactly the kind of pre-call warning an agent needs, though it stops short of describing the returned role objects.

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 action and followed by the caveat; both earn their place. It is efficient without being padded, though slightly terse relative to the ambiguity it leaves.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main gotcha (empty/404 responses by edition). But with no parameter documentation and no hint of what a role record contains or whether results are paginated, it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The endpoint path implies project_id, but the 'mode' enum ('merge') is unexplained, leaving one of two parameters wholly undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource ('list project roles') and the endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings list_available_project_roles or get_project_role, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_available_project_roles or get_project_role. The availability note explains failure modes rather than selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess among similar role-listing tools.

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