security_profile

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

The description discloses what information is returned but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or mention any permissions or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and while it gives moderate insight into the tool's behavior, it lacks explicit safety guarantees or operational caveats.

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, well-structured sentence. It leads with the purpose ('Security triage of a principal'), then specifies identifier types and the scope of information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema in place, and a list of included data categories, the description gives a solid overview. It lacks nuance around terms like 'who controls it' but is otherwise complete for a read-oriented triage tool.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to the otherwise undecorated 'target' parameter by specifying that it accepts a principal name or objectid. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not provide format examples or distinguish between name types (e.g., sAMAccountName vs UPN).

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 uses a specific verb 'triage' and clearly identifies the resource (a principal) and identifier types (name or objectid). It lists the four categories of information returned (attributes, memberships, controllers, tier-0 distance), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_details or tier_zero.

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 provides clear context: use for security triage of a principal, covering attributes, memberships, control, and tier-0 distance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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