Assess agent identities in Microsoft Entra ID and return a prioritized risk ranking to identify and mitigate security vulnerabilities.
Executa assessment específico de Agent Identities e retorna ranking de risco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_risks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). It adds no extra context, but the annotations already provide adequate safety and side-effect information, so the low additional disclosure is acceptable.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
While it specifically names the domain (Agent Identities), it does not clarify what the assessment entails, what the ranking format is, or how it differs from other similar assessment tools. However, given the tool name and sibling context, the intent is mostly discernible.
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 only parameter 'top_risks' has no schema description, and the tool description gives no explanation of its purpose or effect. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.
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 the verb (executes), the resource (Agent Identities), and the outcome (returns risk ranking). It distinguishes itself from sibling listing tools by being an assessment that produces a ranking.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative assessment or listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or differences from the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.