List Roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a read-style enumeration returning per-role state and health. It says nothing about required permissions, whether results are scoped by cluster-wide or service-level permissions, or any rate/volume limits. A reader gets a reasonable behavioral picture but lacks operational caveats for a mutation-free listing call.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the filtering hint; nothing is padded. Brevity comes at the cost of leaving gaps, but there is no wasted wording to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return shapes, and the tool is low-complexity with only three parameters. Still, for a listing tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should establish what cluster means and how results are scoped; those gaps leave it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It partially explains only_unhealthy (filtering to unhealthy roles) and implies that results are scoped by 'service', but the cluster parameter is never addressed and no format or identifier hints are given for either required string.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista as roles de um serviço') and enumerates the returned attributes (type, host, state, health), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_role_log or get_role_config_groups, which prevents a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: the tool is scoped to roles of a given service, and the description names one concrete use case ('Use only_unhealthy=True para filtrar') for narrowing results. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to prefer for role logs, config groups, or cluster-wide listings.

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