run_iam_assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the useful fact that the result includes both risks and a remediation plan, but says nothing about scan duration, breadth of the environment scanned, or cost of an open-world sweep.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the outputs; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a broad assessment tool, but there is 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the two return components (top risks, remediation plan), which partially covers return-value expectations. However it leaves the only input parameter undocumented and gives no sense of scope or runtime for an open-world assessment.

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% and the single parameter 'top_risks' (default 10) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no semantic guidance on what the number controls. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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 ('Executa um IAM Assessment no ambiente') plus the outputs it produces (top risks and a remediation plan), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbour siblings such as run_agent_assessment, run_enterprise_identity_audit or graph_assessment, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this assessment versus the several sibling assessment/audit tools (run_agent_assessment, run_enterprise_identity_audit, graph_assessment), nor any prerequisites or scope conditions. Usage must be fully inferred from the tool name alone.

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