getUserRole

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. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation ('[READ-ONLY]'), specifies the required authentication scope ('Requires `users:read` scope'), and references the underlying API endpoint, adding valuable context beyond basic functionality. It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but covers the essential safety and access aspects well.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, provides API correspondence, specifies required scope, and indicates read-only status in just two sentences. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, authentication, and behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return values (e.g., what details are included in the role response), which is a minor gap for a read operation. The inclusion of API endpoint reference adds helpful context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'userRoleId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Gets details') and resource ('about a specific user role'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'getUser' (for individual users) or 'listUserRoles' (for listing multiple roles). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Gets details about a specific user role') and mentions the required scope ('users:read'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'listUserRoles' for listing all roles, which prevents a perfect score.

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