get_available_user_client_roles

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

Without annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns roles not currently assigned, pagination, or filtering. The description is minimal and provides no additional clarity beyond the basic read operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is very brief and could include additional useful details without compromising conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a conceptual understanding of the return value ('available client-level roles') but does not specify format (e.g., role names or IDs). It is minimally adequate for a simple list 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described as 'Realm name', 'User UUID', and 'Client UUID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is already adequate, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'available client-level roles', with the context 'that can be mapped to the user'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_available_group_client_roles' and 'get_available_user_realm_roles'.

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 such as 'get_effective_user_client_role_mappings' or 'get_user_client_role_mappings'. The description lacks explicit context for choosing this tool.

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