list-available-group-roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns a filtered set (roles that can still be granted), which is useful, but it does not mention permissions, whether already-assigned roles are excluded, or any sorting/pagination behavior. The phrase adds transparency but is incomplete.

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 with no filler. It states the core purpose and the one conditional variation (clientId) efficiently.

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-only listing tool, the description covers what, scope, and parameter usage sufficiently. It is complete enough for correct invocation given the well-documented schema, though it could mention whether composite roles are included or excluded to be more thorough.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters (100%). The description repeats the realm-vs-client distinction already present in the schema, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline of 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 is specific and action-oriented: 'List roles a group could still be granted' identifies the exact resource and scope. The optional 'when clientId is given' further distinguishes which role set is returned, differentiating it from sibling tools like list-roles or get-group-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 phrase 'could still be granted' implies usage for pre-assignment discovery, and the clientId conditional clarifies how to narrow to a specific client. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for currently assigned roles, use get-group-roles'), so clear context but no explicit when-not.

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