graph_assessment

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world hints; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them, particularly the rule that NOT_EVALUATED is never reported as zero. It also states the explicit coverage taxonomy (EVALUATED / PARTIAL / NOT_EVALUATED), which helps the agent interpret results.

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?

Two compact sentences cover purpose, output format, valid scope values, and a critical reporting nuance. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, the description still gives the core output shape (coverage per domain with three statuses) and one key interpretation rule. Minor gaps remain around what 'limit' controls and how capability registry domains map to concrete results, but the definition is sufficient for a confident first invocation.

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 provides no descriptions, so the description's list of valid scope values (identity, directory, privileged, workload, azure) adds real meaning where the schema is silent. However, the 'limit' parameter is not addressed at all, and the description does not fully compensate for 0% schema_description_coverage.

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 ('Executa assessment de identidade'), a source ('capability registry'), and the distinctive output behavior (explicit EVALUATED / PARTIAL / NOT_EVALUATED coverage per domain). This separates it from generic assessment siblings by clarifying that it reports coverage status rather than raw findings.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer to use this when it needs domain-level coverage from the capability registry. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite many assessment-related siblings.

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