Published AVD Desktops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is not obligated to restate it. What it adds is narrow conceptual framing (AVD = Azure-hosted session hosts) rather than behavior such as pagination, response size, or filter semantics.

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?

Three short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence is slightly didactic background, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a caller gets back, and it does not (row shape, default columns). For a zero-required-parameter list tool in a set of 38 near-identically named siblings, the definition is adequate but leaves the AVD-vs-RDS-vs-VDI selection to inference.

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 100%; limit, fields, and filter are each well documented in the schema, including the 'prefer narrowing with filter' advice. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the 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?

Clear verb (List) plus resource (published AVD desktops), and the second sentence pins down that this is the Azure-hosted variant. It does not name the sibling it displaces, so an agent must infer the RDS/VDI distinction from the word 'Azure' alone rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

'Use this to review AVD desktop assignments or verify Azure-based desktop publishing' gives a plausible context of use but no when-not-to-use guidance. With ras_pub_get_rds_desktops, ras_pub_get_vdi_desktops, and ras_pub_get_all_items within one keystroke of this name, the absence of explicit routing is a real gap.

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