hl_user_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states a noun phrase without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, side effects, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 very short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to earn its place by providing essential context; it reads more like a label than a useful tool description.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one param) and has an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned metadata contains or how to interpret it. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 one required param 'user' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what 'user' means or how to format it. With no compensation for the undocumented parameter, the semantics are entirely missing.

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 'Account role metadata (userRole)' identifies a specific resource but lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It is slightly ambiguous about what the tool does, but it does convey that it relates to account role metadata, which is more than a tautology.

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 tool vs alternatives like hl_portfolio or hl_user_fills. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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