identity_360

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope context beyond those annotations: it specifies the aggregation across Entra and Azure, direct/group/PIM access paths, ownership, and risk signals such as blast radius and findings.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's value proposition and then immediately clarifies accepted identifier formats.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key data domains returned (identity, access, provenance, ownership, risk). Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, this is nearly complete, though it does not mention any return structure or limitations.

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 the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating that the identifier accepts UPN, displayName, or objectId, which gives clear semantics for the user_identifier field.

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 tool as providing a complete identity view and enumerates the domains covered (who, access across Entra and Azure, ownership, risk). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_identity_access_summary or compute_identity_blast_radius.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool offers and what inputs it accepts, leaving the agent to infer when this aggregate view is preferable to more focused sibling tools.

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