rbac_audit_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Audit' strongly implies a read-only analysis rather than a mutation, and 'Pro feature' hints that an entitlement or API key may be required. However, it does not disclose what the audit produces, whether any files are changed, or whether the api_key parameter is needed for the audit to run.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with the Pro feature caveat appended at the end. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, this description is too sparse. It explains the high-level goal but omits expected output format, side-effect behavior, authentication requirements, and parameter roles, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.

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 only 50%: the directory parameter is documented, but api_key is not. The description does not directly explain either parameter; 'existing codebase' loosely maps to directory and 'Pro feature' loosely suggests api_key, but this is indirect and ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the missing api_key semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Audit'), a clear resource ('existing codebase'), and the specific goal ('permission gaps and over-privileged access'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like rbac_generate_roles and rbac_generate_middleware, whose focus is creation rather than auditing.

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 phrase 'existing codebase' implies the tool is for auditing current code rather than generating new role definitions, giving some contextual guidance. However, there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools such as auth_audit_security or k8s_security_audit, so usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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