Identity relationship report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses default behavior (dimensions default to 'all'), the no-argument behavior (reports on signed-in user, delegated modes only), and the ambiguous-name fallback (returns candidates, re-call with userId). It also details what each dimension returns (e.g., full manager chain, group types, assigned vs dynamic membership). However, it does not mention error handling, pagination, or permission requirements, which would push it to a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and constraints. The subsequent sentences efficiently deliver usage context, dimension details, and special-case behavior without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does a strong job of covering all necessary context: purpose, default behavior, dimension semantics, and special cases. It doesn't describe the exact JSON structure or include examples, which would be needed for a perfect score, but for a reporting tool the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

While the schema provides basic descriptions (100% coverage), the tool description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It elaborates on the dimensions enum values, explaining exactly what 'org' includes (full manager chain to the root + direct reports) and what 'groups' includes (group types, assigned vs dynamic). It also clarifies that 'search' may return ambiguous candidates and that 'userId' is the exact identifier for a re-call, which is not in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Structured JSON report of one user's identity relationships' — clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the visual sibling by noting 'no UI needed, works headless' and enumerates the report dimensions (org, groups, roles, etc.), which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants analysis, a summary or the underlying data — after exploring the polyarchy visually, or instead of opening it.' This provides a clear use case and contrasts with the visual exploration alternative. Additionally, it explains when to use the userId parameter ('Ambiguous names return candidates — re-call with userId') and the delegated-modes-only restriction for no person argument.

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