assess_coverage

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details about the m365Proxy dependency, the unprovisioned response, and the representative flag for sample data, providing valuable context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences convey purpose, requirements, and a key behavioral note. No fluff; front-loaded with the main action.

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 partially explains the response shape (unprovisioned and representative fields). However, it does not fully describe the expected output (e.g., list of users/apps). Adequate but slightly incomplete.

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?

Only one parameter (ms_tenant_id) with full schema coverage. The description does not add new semantics beyond 'GUID or domain' already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool assesses Conditional Access coverage gaps for a Microsoft Entra tenant, identifying unprotected users and apps. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on DNS, email, and brand security.

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?

Mentions requirement for m365Proxy service binding and conditional behavior (representative vs live data). Provides context for when the tool may not work, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_ca_policies or query_signins.

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