summarize_privilege_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds a useful statement of what the summary aggregates (gains, revocations, activations, anomalies), but does not disclose the default lookback window, aggregation granularity, or whether anomalies are inferred.

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 a parenthetical enumeration; no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list could be read as slightly redundant with the resource name.

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 carries the burden of conveying the return shape; the enumeration of included categories partially does this. However, it omits the time window (the only parameter) and the level of aggregation, leaving meaningful gaps for a reporting tool.

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 sole parameter ('days', default 30) is never referenced in the description. Because the schema does not document the lookback window, the description needed to compensate and does not, leaving the time scope of the summary unstated.

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 clear verb ('Resumo' = summary) and resource ('timeline de privilégios'), and enumerates the summarized content (gains, revocations, activations, anomalies). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the listing siblings (list_privilege_timeline_events, get_identity_privilege_timeline) by being an aggregation rather than a raw event list, but never names those alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the closely related siblings list_privilege_timeline_events or get_identity_privilege_timeline. The agent must infer that a summary is preferred over a raw listing whenever an overview is wanted.

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