mfa_coverage_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly labels the operation as [READ], discloses that one credential list is pulled per user (bounded), and explains the inputsTruncated flag and its implication for coveragePct being sample-based. This gives meaningful behavioral insight beyond a simple read.

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 concise and well-structured, with a summary line, an Args section, and a return-value note. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, and the [READ] flag is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 description explains the core purpose, parameters, and a key return flag (inputsTruncated). It lacks a detailed list of all output fields, but the purpose statement already mentions the main outputs (overall %, users without MFA, factor types). Given no output schema and no annotations, this is reasonably complete but could be enhanced with a structured return description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so effectively: max_users is described as the sample size (default 200, one API call each), and target is identified as an IdP target name with an option to omit it for the default. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's function: analyzing second-factor coverage, including overall percentage, users without MFA, and factor types counted. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_credentials or identity_overview.

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 usage for realm-wide MFA coverage analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g., user_credentials for individual users). It provides useful context about bounded sampling and the max_users parameter, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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