get-group-roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail by specifying the return shape, but it does not mention permissions, whether the roles returned are direct or inherited/composite, or any error conditions. The description adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get roles assigned to a group') and includes the return structure. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the response shape. However, it could be more complete by clarifying whether the roles are direct assignments only or include composite/inherited roles, and by mentioning any required permissions. Still, it is adequate for most use cases.

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 fully describes both parameters ('realm' and 'groupId') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the concept of getting roles for a group. Since the schema covers the parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'roles assigned to a group'. It also specifies the return format as '{ realmMappings, clientMappings }', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-user-roles' or 'list-available-group-roles'. This is a clear and specific purpose.

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 makes it clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'list-available-group-roles' or 'list-composite-group-roles'. The usage context is implied through the verb and resource, but there is no explicit exclusion or comparison, so the guidance is only implicit.

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