bookstack_roles_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the role ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter requirement.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly without structured annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Role ID to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 details') and resource ('a specific role'), specifying what information is retrieved ('including all its permissions and settings'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bookstack_roles_list' by focusing on a single role rather than listing multiple roles, but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bookstack_roles_list' or 'bookstack_permissions_read'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a role ID, or contextual factors like when detailed role information is required versus just a list.

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