defender_get_device_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral value beyond annotations by specifying the exact health dimensions returned and how to interpret them (missing detections tied to antivirus state). No contradictions with annotations.

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 uses two compact sentences with zero filler. The primary action and return fields are front-loaded, and the diagnostic note is placed second, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing mode, engine, platform, signature versions, freshness, and last scans. Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the diagnostic context completes the picture. Nothing essential for invoking this simple list tool 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%, so the schema already documents 'top' and 'filter' with defaults, max, and filter guidance. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('antivirus health of devices') and enumerates the exact attributes returned (mode, engine, platform, signature versions, freshness, scans). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like defender_get_secure_score or defender_get_machines_by_vulnerability, and even from the export-focused defender_export_antivirus_health.

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 second sentence provides clear diagnostic context: a device with passive, disabled, or outdated antivirus explains a missing detection. This effectively tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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