cos_role_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return metadata') and lists the output fields, adding some value, but it does not mention error behavior, invalid role_id handling, or explicitly confirm no side effects. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence states the action and output fields, and the second adds a clear usage hint. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place, and the description is properly front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the primary purpose, usage context, and output fields. The main gap is the unclear meaning of role_id, but the output schema handles return value structure. Overall it is nearly complete for a metadata lookup tool.

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 schema has one required parameter (role_id) with no description coverage. The phrase 'formula-role (researcher..refactorer)' hints that role_id should be one of these role names, but it does not explicitly connect role_id to that list or specify the expected format. The agent must infer the value semantics, which is insufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'formula-role' and the exact metadata fields returned (prompt_prefix, tools_budget, etc.). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that focus on tasks, graphs, or dispatch, none of which provide role metadata lookup.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for the main agent before dispatch,' giving a clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before dispatch' hint is specific enough to guide the agent.

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