List Organization Roles

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations declare—such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees).

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all roles') and specifies the scope ('defined for an organization'). Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple single-parameter input schema, comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., list format, role properties) or potential limitations, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from context or tool name patterns.

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%, with the single parameter 'organization_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool operates within an organizational context, which is already evident from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 defined for an organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_org_members' or 'dual_list_organizations', which would require mentioning this specifically lists roles rather than members or organizations themselves.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an organization_id), when this would be appropriate versus other listing tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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