get_role_risk_score

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 profile is covered. The description adds useful context with the 0-100 score range and the two supported providers, but says nothing about what drives the score, caching, or latency.

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; the score range and provider scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 output schema, no annotation detail on return semantics, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description leaves an agent unable to determine valid provider values, how 'scope' and 'state' affect the result, or how to interpret the numeric score. For a tool with this parameter surface it does too little.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description only indirectly implies 'role' and 'provider' ('role privilegiada de Entra ID ou Azure RBAC'). The optional 'scope' (default '/') and 'state' parameters — including valid provider values and scope path format — are entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 (Calcula) and resource (score de risco) and scopes it to privileged roles in Entra ID or Azure RBAC, with an explicit 0-100 range. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling listing/assessment tools, though it does not name a sibling it replaces.

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 routing to alternatives such as detect_toxic_combinations or compute_identity_blast_radius. The agent must infer that this is a per-role scoring call from the description alone.

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