defender_export_assessment

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait beyond annotations: the export is large, results come in bounded pages, and a next link is provided.

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 carry all the essential information with no filler. The first sentence gives the verb and resource; the second explains scale and pagination, making it appropriately-sized and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, row granularity, scale, and pagination. The return shape beyond 'bounded page' is left unspecified, but the next-link mention gives an agent enough to proceed correctly.

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?

The schema already gives full coverage for both parameters, including enum meanings and top's default/max, so the baseline is 3. The description adds row-granularity semantics ('one row per device and software...') that clarify what assessment_type actually represents, justifying a 4.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('Read a per-device assessment') and enumerates the four assessment types, making the core purpose clear and matching the schema enum. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differenciate from, so it stops short of the strongest sibling differenciation.

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 provides useful context by noting that the full export is large and that this tool returns one bounded page plus a next link, implying use for paginated bulk reads. It does not state when to prefer this over the many sibling get_* tools, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routes.

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