get_user_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and the alphabetical ordering of results, but does not deeply expand on behavior beyond what annotations cover. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and include useful metadata (read-only indicator, endpoint). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (read-only, list retrieval), the description sufficiently covers the return format (list of roles in alphabetical order) and scope (school-level). Annotations provide safety context. No output schema exists, but the description implies a list of role objects, which is adequate for this 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves all user roles, with specific verb 'Get all' and resource 'user roles'. It also specifies additional details like alphabetical ordering by title, making the purpose unambiguous. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_role_user', the scope of 'all roles' is distinct and evident.

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 implies usage for retrieving the full list of user roles, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., get_user_role_user for a specific user's roles) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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