App Service overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'App setting and connection string values are never read.' This is valuable context beyond what the annotations provide and helps the agent avoid expecting sensitive values in the output.

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 packed with useful enumerations, including state, runtime stack, plan/scale, configuration, logging, slots, deployments, and functions. It front-loads the verb and target resource, and the final sentence adds an important constraint without any filler.

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 must communicate what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly by listing all major sections: state, stack, plan, configuration, logging, slots, deployments, and functions. The explicit statement about not reading secrets also clarifies an important boundary for a potentially sensitive Azure resource.

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% and the resourceId parameter is already documented as a Microsoft.Web/sites app or sites/slots slot. The description reinforces the resource scope but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Summarizes'), a specific resource type ('App Service or Function app or a deployment slot'), and a clear purpose ('for debugging'). It also enumerates the exact aspects covered, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like azure_appservice_logs or azure_get_resource.

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 phrase 'for debugging' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when an agent needs a broad overview of an App Service, Function app, or slot before digging into logs or metrics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a fully explicit routing guideline.

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