Cloud Permissions

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

There is a direct contradiction: the description claims 'Read-only enumeration' while the annotation readOnlyHint is false, meaning the tool is not read-only. This is a serious inconsistency. Additionally, openWorldHint true suggests potential external side effects, further conflicting with the read-only claim. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the contradictory read-only statement, and annotations are not adequately reflected.

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 concise and front-loaded with the critical warning '[AGGRESSIVE — requires human approval]'. Each sentence adds information: the first defines the function, the second gives credential requirements and a read-only claim. There is no fluff, but the read-only claim is misleading and detracts from structure quality.

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 having an output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what the output looks like, what parameters affect, or how it differs from similar cloud tools. The low schema coverage (0%) places a heavy burden on the description, which it fails to meet. The tool appears moderately complex, yet the description leaves many gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters (profile and provider) at all. Since the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the lack of semantic meaning. An agent would not know what values to provide for profile or provider or what they control.

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 a specific action ('Map principals, permissions, and privilege-escalation paths') and names the tool (CloudFox). It is not a tautology and gives a clear resource focus. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cloud_attack_paths or cloud_asset_discovery, which could overlap in purpose.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires credentials the program gave you') and states it is read-only enumeration, which implies appropriate contexts. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions where other tools are preferred. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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