Get project roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what the returned data looks like, whether actors are user accounts or group names, whether all roles are returned, or any permission requirements. The core behavior is present but minimally elaborated.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no filler, and the key clarification about actors is included parenthetically without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential invocation need: the project context and the returned concept (roles with actors). It lacks a more detailed return-format explanation, but the low complexity and complete schema coverage make the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a 'Project key' description. The tool description only restates the project context and adds nothing about the projectKey format or behavior, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the baseline established by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('roles (and their actors) of a project'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling project getters like get_project, get_project_versions, and get_project_components.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus related project tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, so an agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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