detect_toxic_combinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is clear. The description adds the notion of 'evidence,' implying findings are returned, but does not describe return format, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though extremely short and perhaps too terse to be fully informative.

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 detection/assessment tool in a rich identity context, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema to explain return values, no clarification of what 'evidence' entails, and no usage context. Annotations cover safety, but the agent still lacks sufficient info to invoke it confidently among many similar siblings.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not explain its purpose. The description provides no parameter information at all. Baseline is not 4 because the single param lacks documentation, but the impact is limited due to low complexity.

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 (detect) and resource (toxic combinations / Separation of Duties violations) and mentions evidence. It is distinguishable from siblings focused on listing, summarizing, or graphing, though it could be sharper about the exact output or scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The agent can infer it relates to SoD and toxic combinations, but there is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over run_iam_assessment or list_privilege_timeline_events, or what 'evidence' means in context.

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