graph_role_assignments

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful backend behavior: it separates Directory/PIM data from Azure RBAC data and explicitly warns not to assume Microsoft Graph covers Azure RBAC. It omits pagination, limit behavior, and required permissions, but is stronger than the annotation baseline.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core query, bullet-lists the source split, and ends with the key warning. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

Covers the core source-separation concept and benefits from strong annotations, but with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage it leaves return shape, pagination, limit behavior, and parameter toggles unspecified. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a four-parameter query tool.

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% for four parameters. The description loosely maps to include_directory_roles, include_pim, and include_azure_rbac by naming the source categories, but it never mentions the limit parameter, defaults, or how the include flags toggle sources, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Consulta atribuições de privilégio') and clearly scopes the tool to two source families: Directory roles/PIM via Microsoft Graph and Azure RBAC via Azure Resource Graph. The explicit warning that Microsoft Graph does not cover Azure RBAC distinguishes it from graph-only siblings and prevents a common source-assumption error.

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?

Implies usage by describing source separation and the Graph-vs-Azure-RBAC assumption, but does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like list_azure_role_assignments or list_pim_role_states. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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