bookstack_roles_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and filtering options', which hints at scalability and query capabilities, but fails to address critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all roles in the system') and appends key features ('with pagination and filtering options'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on authentication, error responses, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the schema and description, which together provide a functional but incomplete picture.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (count, offset, sort, filter). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond stating 'pagination and filtering options', which merely echoes what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('all roles in the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_roles_read' (single role) and 'bookstack_roles_create' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'bookstack_users_list'), though the resource specificity is sufficient.

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. While the description implies it's for listing roles, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to 'bookstack_search' for broader queries, or specify scenarios like administrative tasks. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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