getRoles

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as authentication requirements, pagination, or what data is returned. Since the annotation covers the basic safety profile, the lack of extra disclosure limits the value to the agent.

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—two words—and the key information (action and resource) is front-loaded. It is not verbose, but it is also under-specified for a tool with a required parameter. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for missing context that could fit in the same length.

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 required 'format' parameter, the existence of sibling tools like getRole, and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what roles are, how the format parameter works, or what response to expect. A more complete description would at least hint at the role object structure or the format's role in serialization.

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 includes a required 'format' parameter with enum values 'json' and 'xml', but the description provides no explanation of why the format is needed or how it affects the output. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not. The agent is left to infer from the schema, which is explicit but not enriched by the description.

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 roles' uses a clear verb (List) and resource (roles), and the plural form contrasts with the sibling tool getRole, so the agent can infer it returns multiple roles. However, it does not explicitly note scope (e.g., all roles) or differentiate from other list tools like getIssues, but the resource is unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of whether to call getRoles versus getRole, or any context about filtering or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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