azure_scan_aks_policy_bypass

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with a read-only scan. It adds transparency by detailing what is analyzed (Gatekeeper constraints, Kyverno policies, audit modes, webhook configurations), but does not mention potential time/resource requirements or permission needs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only scan tool, covering what vulnerabilities are detected and what is analyzed. However, without an output schema, it could be improved by briefly describing the output format (e.g., report containing findings).

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional info beyond the schema, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema alone.

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 states it detects OPA and Kyverno policy bypass vulnerabilities, listing specific checks (constraint violations, policy exceptions abuse, enforcement gaps). It names the technologies and resources analyzed, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like azure_scan_aks_full.

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 usage for policy bypass detection but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., azure_scan_aks_full). No 'when not to use' or contextual cues are provided.

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