Get roles

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the GET method and 'Body fields: none', but does not describe response behavior, pagination, or other runtime traits; these are covered only partially by the schema.

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 very short and front-loaded with the verb, resource, and endpoint. The reference link and body note are useful, but the sentence 'Body fields: none' is somewhat redundant given the schema and the GET context.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and a well-documented parameter schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains what a role object contains or what the response looks like, which would help an agent validate results.

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%, and the schema already documents query parameter names, comma-joining of arrays, and explicit pagination behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting there is no request body, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get roles') and includes the exact REST path, making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling get_* tools, but the resource name and endpoint are specific enough.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states the operation and links to API docs, leaving an agent to infer appropriate usage from the name.

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