graph_role_assignments

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it promises source separation and explicitly disclaims that Microsoft Graph covers Azure RBAC, which is critical for correctly interpreting the results. It does not detail return shape or pagination, but that is partially mitigated by annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized with bullet points for the key source distinctions. The final warning is short but high-value. Every clause earns its place 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain result structure, how source separation manifests in the output, or whether the limit applies per source or globally. However, the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and the explicit source separation warning provide enough context for an agent to make a reasonable first call.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It indirectly maps the source categories to include_pim, include_azure_rbac, and include_directory_roles, but it never explains the limit parameter, the toggles' effects, or how defaults behave. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Consulta atribuições de privilégio') and precisely identifies the covered sources: directory roles/PIM via Microsoft Graph and Azure RBAC via Azure Resource Graph. The phrase 'mantendo as fontes separadas' distinguishes it from simpler single-source role assignment tools among the siblings.

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 description provides clear context for use: it is the tool to use when privilege assignments must be queried with sources kept separate across Microsoft Graph and Azure Resource Graph. The warning 'Não assume que Microsoft Graph cobre Azure RBAC' is a useful usage guardrail, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions.

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