run_agent_assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is a 'ranking de risco'; it says nothing about scoring method, cost, latency, or whether the openWorldHint implies external calls. Some added value, but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope and return artifact come in order. It is efficient, though terse to the point of leaving capability undefined.

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?

For an assessment tool with no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and dozens of near-neighbor siblings, the description should explain what the risk ranking contains and how it relates to the adjacent graph/IAM assessment tools. As written, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently or interpret results.

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 single parameter top_risks has a default of 10 but 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The name is largely self-explanatory (number of top-ranked risks), which prevents a 1, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 a narrow resource ('assessment específico de Agent Identities') plus the output artifact ('ranking de risco'), which separates it from broader siblings like run_iam_assessment and run_enterprise_identity_audit. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the 'Agent Identities' scope is distinctive enough for selection.

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 prerequisites are given. With ~40 siblings including list_agent_identities, graph_assessment, run_iam_assessment and run_enterprise_identity_audit, the agent gets no routing guidance about when this assessment is the right call versus those alternatives.

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