audit_user_permissions

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the audit is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are checked, or what the output format is. The description essentially restates the tool's name with a purpose clause.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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?

Despite the simple parameter set, the description lacks critical information about return values, behavioral effects, and requirements (e.g., admin privileges, read-only nature). The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant, leaving the agent uncertain what the tool will produce.

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 input schema describes the single userName parameter with a clear default and purpose, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as performing an audit of user permissions, with a stated purpose of security analysis and compliance. It uses the specific verb 'audit' and the resource 'user permissions', and the context helps differentiate from a simple retrieval like get_user_permissions, though the exact scope isn't defined.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_permissions or list_users. It implies a security/compliance context but doesn't state when to choose this tool or when to prefer others.

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