list_organization_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation and implies no destructive side effects, but the description does not mention potential pagination, authorization requirements, or whether inherited or system-defined roles are included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter listing tool and an output schema exists, so describing return values is unnecessary. The description covers the core action and scope adequately, though a bit more detail about what 'permission roles' includes would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented organization_id parameter. The phrase 'in an organization' hints at the parameter's purpose, but it does not explain the expected format, where to obtain the ID, or any constraints beyond it being required.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('permission roles'), and the scope ('in an organization'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_organization_members, which deal with membership rather than roles.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the permission roles for an organization. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to similarly named tools like list_organization_members.

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