Published AVD Apps

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that these are 'Azure-hosted session hosts' apps and mentioning the purpose of 'reviewing assignments' and 'verifying publishing.' It doesn't contradict annotations, and provides useful operational context.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 this is a simple list operation with comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, etc.) and no parameters, the description provides good context about what's being listed and why. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what information is returned about each app (e.g., names, IDs, assignment details), leaving some ambiguity about the response format.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('published Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD) applications'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like ras_pub_get_rds_apps and ras_pub_get_vdi_apps by specifying it's for AVD apps delivered from Azure-hosted session hosts. It provides specific context about what makes these apps unique.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to review AVD app assignments or verify Azure-based application publishing'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools (like ras_pub_get_rds_apps for RDS apps).

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