Container App overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond this: it explains that the tool retrieves a broad multi-section snapshot, includes restart counts and states of replicas, and scopes to active revisions. This is useful context that annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the second sentence to point to the correct sibling tool for logs. The first sentence is long but every listed item represents a distinct part of the returned overview, so the length is justified rather than padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the full scope of the overview: provisioning/running state, ingress, container specs, probes, scale rules, revisions, traffic, and replica restart counts. It also handles the main adjacent need—logs—by naming azure_containerapp_logs. For a one-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 sole resourceId parameter is already documented as the resource ID of a Microsoft.App/containerApps app. The description does not add further parameter-level nuance, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarizes a Container App for debugging.' It then enumerates the exact categories covered (state, ingress, containers, scale rules, revisions, replicas), making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from log-focused siblings.

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 gives clear usage context ('for debugging') and explicitly routes console/system log needs to azure_containerapp_logs. It does not exhaustively contrast with azure_get_resource or the other overview tools, but the resource-scoped summary purpose is clear enough for most selection scenarios.

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