who_has_access

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important semantics that annotations do not: inherited vs direct assignments, the scope_coverage caveat that missing data is unknown rather than zero, computed capabilities (assign_roles, write_resource, delete_resource), and data-plane auth facts. These are substantial behavioral details beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded and each sentence carries information: scope of assignments, coverage caveat, computed capabilities, and additional data-plane facts. It is somewhat packed, but no sentence is wasted for a tool of this complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does some of the work of explaining the return shape (assignments with inherited/direct flags, capabilities, scope_coverage, data-plane facts). That is helpful, but the description does not cover pagination, error behavior, or how to interpret the output fully. Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

There is only one parameter, target, and schema description coverage is 0% – the schema gives no meaning for target. The description says 'that apply to a resource' but never explains what the target string should be (ARM resource ID, resource name, scope URI, etc.). With a single undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 is precise about the resource and the operation: it returns active Azure RBAC role assignments that apply to a resource. It distinguishes the scope (resource, parent, RG, subscription, management groups) and explains what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_access or identity_permissions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when the tool is useful: when you need role assignments and inherited/direct access. It also clarifies that uncollected scopes are unknown, not zero. However, it does not name the alternative tools or say when to use one over the other, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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