list_sod_violations

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing for 'review and remediation,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what the output contains. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be more informative. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.

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 (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what SOD violations are, the format of returned data, or how review and remediation tie into the tool's functionality. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's role and output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, such as default values, constraints, or usage examples. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool's purpose as listing SOD violations for review and remediation, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (SOD violations) and general intent (review/remediation), but lacks specificity about what SOD violations are or how they differ from other list tools like list_sod_policies. This distinguishes it from non-list siblings but not clearly from other list tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'review and remediation' as a purpose, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from other list tools such as list_sod_policies or search. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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