get_subscription_direct_access_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that this is a summary rather than a list, focuses on direct assignments, and includes privileged ones. It does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or the practical meaning of 'direct' versus effective access, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It places the core resource and scope first and the privileged-inclusion qualifier at the end, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema and only one parameter, the description covers the essential subject and scope but leaves out what the summary contains, how 'direct' is defined relative to effective access, and how the limit parameter behaves. It is adequate for simple selection but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema has one optional 'limit' parameter with a default of 20, but the description does not mention it or give any additional meaning. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate; it does not, though the single parameter is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1.

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 identifies the resource (role assignments diretos), the scope (subscription), and the operation type (summary), and adds that privileged assignments are included. It is specific enough to distinguish from effective-access or tenant-wide summaries, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 case is implied by the scope: use this when wanting a summary of direct role assignments at subscription level. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related cases like effective access or detailed assignment lists.

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