audit_agent_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, modifies the agent configuration, requires permissions, or what the output format is (e.g., report structure). This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose. However, some additional structure or bullet points could improve scanability, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of violations), whether it modifies state, or how to interpret flags. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'role-based expectations' but does not specify how the role is used or clarify the nested 'agent_config' structure beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: auditing an agent configuration for over-privileged access by comparing against role-based expectations. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('audit agent configuration') and distinguishes itself from sibling security tools like 'scan_mcp_config' and 'detect_prompt_injection' which focus on different aspects.

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 description implies usage for checking agent permissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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