detect_toxic_combinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. 'com evidência' usefully indicates the output includes supporting evidence, but the description doesn't explain how evidence is presented, whether results are capped by the limit, or what constitutes a toxic combination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the key output quality ('com evidência'). No filler or redundant wording; every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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, the basic use case is clear and annotations cover safety. However, without an output schema, the description should clarify the expected output and the role of the limit. The current text is minimally viable but leaves important return-value and behavioral details implicit.

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 never mentions the optional 'limit' parameter. The schema provides only the type and default value, not the meaning or behavior of the limit. For a single optional integer this is not critical, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Detecta') and a concrete resource ('toxic combinations / violações de Separation of Duties'), and adds that results include evidence. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on listings, timelines, or assessments.

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 intended use is implied: it should be used when toxic combinations or Separation of Duties violations need to be found. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it compares to related tools such as get_role_risk_score or run_iam_assessment.

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