rush_iam_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the escription carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'ynthesize' as the behavior but does not disclose whether this modifies anything, requires cloud access, reads existing policies, or purely produces a policy document.

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 phrase is tight and front-loads the core action and object, containing no filler. It is terse, but this dimension rewards brevity and clear structure.

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?

With no annotations and no parameter context, the escription leaves open whether the tool mutates the cloud environment, what it reads as input, and which cloud provider or scope it targets. The presence of an output schema helps return-value understanding, but operation inputs and side effects are unexplained.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is vacuously 100% covered, so there are no parameter formats or semantics for the description to clarify. It does not explain implicit context inputs, but the zero-param baseline applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Synthesize') and a concrete resource ('least-privilege cloud IAM policy'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rush_iac, rush_security, or rush_review. The one-line description only implies the obvious scenario and gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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