find_sensitive_access

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: effective permissions honoring muting, recall over precision, and broad matches. It implies a read-only query without stating explicitly, but the traits are well-described.

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?

Two concise sentences cover the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. No extraneous text, though the parameter omission could be addressed with a brief addition.

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 complexity of sensitive access detection and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the input, matching logic, and output scope. Missing only parameter details, but overall complete.

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 description does not mention the single required parameter 'snapshot_id', failing to explain its role or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap since the parameter is essential.

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 finds every principal granting read/edit on fields matching sensitivity patterns (SSN/DOB/account-number/card/comp), distinguishing it from siblings like permission_diff which handle general permission differences.

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 clear context for use: to detect sensitive access with recall prioritized over precision. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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