identity_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (roles and scopes for managed identities) but does not disclose behavioral traits like inheritance, pagination, or required permissions. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence and is front-loaded with the returned data. However, it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete instructive sentence, which slightly reduces its usability. It is concise but not optimally structured for an agent.

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 one required parameter and no output schema. The description states what data is returned but does not explain the 'target' parameter, the output structure, or any usage context. Although annotations cover safety, critical details for correct invocation are missing.

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%, and the sole parameter 'target' has no description in the schema. The description indirectly suggests that 'target' refers to a resource, but it does not explain the expected format, scope, or any constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description falls short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 names the returned data precisely — roles and scopes held by a resource's system-assigned and user-assigned managed identities — and thus distinguishes itself from generic access-related siblings. However, it is a noun fragment with no action verb, leaving an agent to infer that this is a read operation. The purpose is understandable but not stated as an action.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as get_access or who_has_access, nor does it indicate prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent is left to guess based on the tool name alone.

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