yaaif_roles_list

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses a required permission ('Requires users:read.') which is valuable auth context. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of strings, object keys) or any sort/order guarantees, and being a read/list tool without annotations could benefit from a note on read-only nature (though the verb 'List' implies 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?

One sentence, front-loads the primary action ('List tenant RBAC role names') and enumerates roles immediately, then adds the permission note efficiently. Zero waste; every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and auth requirement. It misses an explicit statement that the result contains role names (implied by 'List... role names') and any grouping/filtering options (none exist). Could add a note on whether custom roles are only listed for the current tenant, but this is minor.

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?

Schema has 0 parameters and coverage is 100%, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but does add value by listing role names, which is more than the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to zero-param tool; description could mention output format but isn't required for parameters.

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?

Purpose is very specific: list tenant RBAC role names, with concrete enumeration of built-in role names (ADMIN, EDITOR, DEVELOPER, VIEWER, CHAT_USER) plus custom roles, and explicitly ties to a resource (tenant roles). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like yaaif_user_list (users) or yaaif_user_role_set (assignment) by naming roles as the resource.

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 implies the tool is for listing roles, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor exclusion cases. The role enumeration helps contextualize but doesn't state when listing roles is needed (e.g., before setting a user's role). With many sibling tools present, this gap is noticeable but not critical.

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