arf_list_sample_roles

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the return format (TSV), the exact column set, and an important data-quality caveat: `batch` is inferred from an 8-digit date in the filename because MS-DIAL lacks a dedicated field, with `batch_source` hoisted into the header row. That caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry; it only lacks notes on failure modes (e.g., no ARF loaded).

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?

Purpose and the pre-processing-check framing are front-loaded in the first sentence, with column and derivation details following. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by running the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, listing all six columns and the header-level `batch_source`. Complete enough to call and interpret; only preconditions (a loaded ARF must exist) are left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining the default semantics of the emitted `group` column (full Class ID when group_levels is unspecified), which preempts confusion about output rather than input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: classify samples of a loaded ARF into sample/qc/blank and return a TSV table, with the columns enumerated. An agent can tell this is a read-only role-listing tool rather than an analysis tool like arf_pca_preprocessed, though it never names the sibling listers (arf_list_tags, arf_list_classes) it sits beside.

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?

「前処理の適用前確認」 gives a clear trigger condition — run this to confirm sample roles before applying preprocessing. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for other listing needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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