zitadel_list_project_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and not contradicted. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on default-project fallback behavior, result size, or pagination – which is acceptable but minimal given annotations carry the load.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the examples earning their place by clarifying what a 'role' means here. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the no-filter scope behavior when projectId is omitted, though the schema states this.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents projectId including the 'uses default project if omitted' behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all roles defined in a Zitadel project') and grounds it with example role names. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent zitadel_list_org_manager_roles or zitadel_create_project_role, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus related tools such as zitadel_list_org_manager_roles, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'defined in a project'.

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