list_project_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It only states the action ('list'), implying a safe read operation, but fails to disclose aspects like error behavior (e.g., if project not found), pagination, or response structure. This minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 concise at one sentence and five words, but it lacks substantive content. It is not a case of efficient communication; it is under-specified. The brevity does not earn its place as it fails to add needed context.

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 has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what a role is, what the output looks like, or any constraints. The description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% property description coverage, requiring the description to add meaning. However, the description does not mention the required 'projectId' parameter at all, leaving agents without context on format, constraints, or how to specify the project.

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 'List all roles in a project' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('roles') with a clear scope ('in a project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_project_role' (which retrieves a single role) effectively.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_role' or 'create_project_role'. The description only states what the tool does, with no context on usage context or exclusions.

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