list-client-roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details such as whether composite roles are included, pagination behavior, or the response structure. For a simple list operation, the basic transparency is adequate, but richer context would improve it.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not clarify whether 'all roles' includes only top-level roles or also composite roles, which is a relevant ambiguity given sibling tools like 'list-composite-roles'. The description is sufficient for a basic list but lacks completeness in delineating edge 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 covers 100% of the parameters, each with a description ('Realm name' and 'Client ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context is provided about how the parameters interact or format requirements.

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 'List all roles defined on a client' uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('roles') and scope ('on a client'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-roles' by indicating client-scoped roles, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'on a client' implies the tool is used for client-specific roles, and the existence of 'list-roles' suggests a realm-level alternative. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this vs. list-roles, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. Usage context is implied, not explicitly guided.

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