analyze_user_privileges

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying what the tool 'shows' (privilege levels) and its purpose (identifying issues), which complements annotations without contradiction. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or output format.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of outputs, and ending with the utility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description details outputs and purpose. It's mostly complete but could improve by specifying return format or examples. Without an output schema, some ambiguity remains, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it omits parameter details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze privileges') and resources ('user or all users'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on privilege analysis rather than performance, health, or other database aspects. It lists the specific privilege levels examined, making the scope explicit.

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 identifying 'excessive or missing privileges,' suggesting it's for security auditing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_security' or 'check_database_health.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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