Get shared device roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the revision-handoff behavior and the layering relationship with project-level deviceRoles. It doesn't describe pagination or error cases, but for a simple read of a single org's roles, the description plus annotations are sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation and return value, the second gives the revision handoff, the third clarifies the layering with project-level roles. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the revision handoff, and the relationship to project-level roles. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the response shape beyond 'roles array and revision', but that is adequately specified. The tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the org parameter well, including the defaulting behavior and the pointer to list_orgs. The description adds the context that the org is the target of the role vocabulary read, which is marginal but useful. Baseline 3 is exceeded slightly because the description reinforces the parameter's role in the operation.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('an organisation's shared device-role vocabulary'), and the exact return payload ('the complete roles array and its revision'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_org_roles by naming it and explaining the revision handoff. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 explicitly says to pass the returned revision to set_org_roles, which tells the agent when this tool is a prerequisite and how it relates to its write counterpart. It also clarifies that project-level deviceRoles are layered on top, so an agent knows this is the org-level view and not the full effective picture. This is strong routing guidance.

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