graph_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description usefully reinforces that it does not execute the query and states what the response itemizes (delegated/application permissions, license requirement), but adds no cost, rate-limit, or failure-mode context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and followed by the key behavioral caveat. No padding, though the second sentence could be folded into the first.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does list the returned categories, which is helpful. But with 0% schema coverage on two parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently with meaningful inputs.

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 neither of the two parameters (question, capability_id) is explained in the description. The phrase 'para uma consulta' hints at the question parameter but gives no guidance on capability_id, its format, or the relationship between the two.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns the Microsoft Graph/Azure permissions required for a query, and enumerates the payload (delegated vs application permissions, license requirement). The second sentence distinguishes it from executing siblings like graph_query, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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?

'Não executa consulta: serve para validar viabilidade antes de consultar' gives a clear condition for use — pre-flight validation before an actual query. No alternative tool is named and no exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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