Get security roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only hints that roles are scoped to a company or reseller account. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the result set looks like (names, IDs, permission sets), whether pagination applies, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than through tight editing. Being front-loaded is moot when there is only one clause.

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?

A one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool needs the description to explain what comes back and how the account type affects results. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or scope.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as "ALSO Cloud Account ID". The description's "company/reseller" phrasing adds a small amount of meaning — that the same ID space covers two account types — but no format or optionality guidance beyond the schema.

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 essentially restates the tool name and title ("GetSecurityRoles") and appends only "for company/reseller accountId". It gives no verb-plus-resource framing beyond what the name already conveys and does nothing to separate it from the many other get_* list tools in the sibling set.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of what an agent should do if it lacks an accountId. The only implied context is that the tool relates to an account, which an agent could infer from the parameter name alone.

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