Estimate an identity's blast radius across Azure subscriptions, management groups, and access-granting capabilities to assess potential impact.
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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the main behavioral expectations. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., required permissions, absence of side effects) beyond what annotations provide, which is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 a single, succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 simple tool with one input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it considers (subscriptions, management groups, grant access). It lacks information about the output shape or units, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter, identity_identifier, is a generic string with no format specification (e.g., UPN, object ID, display name) or clarification of what types of identities are supported (user, group, service principal). The schema provides no description, and the tool description does not elaborate.
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: to estimate the blast radius of an identity, explicitly mentioning subscriptions, management groups, and the ability to grant access. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_top_blast_radius or get_role_risk_score, which focus on different outputs.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_top_blast_radius, detect_toxic_combinations, or get_role_risk_score. The description offers no conditional advice or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.