list_roles

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 does disclose the response contents (role names, capabilities, assigned users, data access filters) and notes the API version (v2). However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects (though as a list operation, side effects are unlikely). The absence of such details leaves some gaps, but the read-only nature is implied by 'List' and the return information is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 concise and front-loaded. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence succinctly summarizes the return payload. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, an output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the API version, and the kind of data returned. The output schema presumably defines the exact return structure, so the description does not need to enumerate every field. However, it could mention that results are paginated (implied by the `token` parameter) or that all roles are returned regardless of user context, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (`limit` with max/min/default, `token` as a pagination token). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters, so it stays at the baseline score of 3, relying on the schema to convey parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'List all roles in the account (v2 API).' It uses a specific verb (list), identifies the resource (roles), and specifies the scope (account). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on roles, which none of the sibling tools explicitly handle. The additional details about returned fields (role names, capabilities, assigned users, data access filters) further clarify its unique purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to list roles and retrieve their associated details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given that no sibling tool serves a similar role-listing function, the lack of an explicit alternative is acceptable, but it could still benefit from a phrase like 'Use this when you need role information' to fully satisfy the 'when-to-use' guidance.

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