stale_access_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes a '[READ]' prefix indicating read-only operation, describes what the audit detects, and crucially explains truncation behavior ('inputsTruncated', 'truncated') and the guarantee that *Count fields are full totals. This is substantial behavioral context, though it stops short of discussing auth requirements or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a lead summary, an Args section, and a Returns note. It is a bit longer than a one-liner, but every sentence adds necessary information—parameter details and truncation behavior. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides essential return-field context ('inputsTruncated', 'truncated', '*Count fields') and clearly lists the types of findings. It covers all three parameters and their defaults. It does not describe the full output structure or potential error conditions, but for a read-audit tool with this parameter set, the description is quite complete.

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 compensate fully. It does so by providing an Args block that explains each parameter's meaning (idle threshold, users to pull, IdP target name) and notes defaults. This adds value beyond the bare schema properties and makes the tool safely invocable.

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 it is a dormant-access audit and enumerates specific categories: enabled users idle > N days, accounts that never signed in, service accounts with interactive logins, and orphaned sessions. This goes far beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like mfa_coverage_analysis or client_misconfig_audit.

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 auditing stale/dormant access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or for which scenarios one should prefer a sibling tool. The context is clear enough to infer its purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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