list_roles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at returned data (position and permissions), but that overlaps with the existing output schema, and nothing is said about read-only semantics, required bot permissions (e.g., Manage Roles to see full permission sets), ordering of the returned list, or whether all roles including @everyone are included.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — appropriately sized for a list operation. The encoding corruption blunts the clarity it would otherwise earn.

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?

The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and ships an output schema that covers the return shape, so the description's only real obligation is the guild_id semantics, which it omits. What it does say is accurate but leaves an essential scope detail to inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (guild_id) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no confirmation that this is the target server/guild identifier nor its expected format. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap at all.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lista cargos') and even states the payload scope ('com posição e permissões'), which separates it from the mutate-style siblings create_role/edit_role/delete_role. It loses a point for the mojibake encoding ('posição', 'permissões') that degrades readability and for not explicitly naming those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named; the agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_role/edit_role/delete_role/add_role/remove_role. No prerequisites or permission requirements are mentioned.

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