Computes the blast radius of an identity by identifying its Azure subscriptions, management groups, and access-granting capabilities.
Estima o blast radius (alcance) de uma identidade (subscriptions, management groups, capacidade de conceder acesso).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identity_identifier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the radius covers (subscriptions, management groups, grant-access capability), but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether results are cached.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is well sized for the tool's simplicity, though the parenthetical enumeration slightly compresses information that could be structured more clearly.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly adequate, and the parenthetical hints at what the estimate covers. However, with no output schema the description should say more about what the estimation returns, and it omits the input identifier format.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the meaning of identity_identifier, yet it never states the expected format (UPN, object ID, service principal id). Only a vague reference to 'uma identidade' appears, leaving the single required parameter effectively undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb ('Estima') and resource ('blast radius de uma identidade') and clarifies the scope in parentheses (subscriptions, management groups, access-granting capability). It is distinguishable from the sibling list_top_blast_radius, though the description never explicitly contrasts single-identity computation with that list-style tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_top_blast_radius or get_user_effective_azure_access. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.