vulnforge_audit_iam

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose substantive behavior by naming the exact vulnerability classes the audit detects, which is real value. But it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether the content is transmitted or processed locally, or what kind of findings report is produced.

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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, and the check list appended as a qualifying clause. Every listed item is informative rather than filler, though the enumeration is long enough that the sentence is approaching a run-on.

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 and no annotations, the agent knows what the tool analyzes but not what it returns — a findings list, a score, per-issue severities, remediation text? For a multi-format audit tool the 'what you get back' gap is the material omission.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description including the policyType enum with an 'auto-detected if omitted' note. The description's mention of AWS IAM JSON, Terraform HCL, GCP IAM bindings, and Azure RBAC mirrors the enum values but adds no syntax or format nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Audits' paired with a narrowly scoped resource: Cloud-Native IAM policies and Zero Trust access rules across four named formats. The enumerated check classes (wildcards, iam:PassRole escalation, public trust, confused deputy, TLS/MFA) make it trivially separable from siblings like vulnforge_audit_vault, vulnforge_audit_kms_hsm, or vulnforge_audit_microsegmentation.

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?

The domain (IAM/Zero Trust policy artifacts) implicitly signals when this tool applies, and the accepted input formats narrow it further. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over overlapping siblings such as vulnforge_full_scan or vulnforge_audit_vault, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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