defender_get_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the indicator types and OData filtering examples, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits or potential result size beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds filtering details and examples. It is concise with no wasted words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, all documented) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is listed, the filtering capability, and provides examples. While it doesn't describe the return format, that is not required given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete OData filter examples ('indicatorValue eq ...', 'action eq ...'), which clarifies how to use the filter parameter beyond its generic schema description. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'custom indicators of the tenant', specifying the indicator types (allow, audit, warn, block) and the filtering capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one dealing with indicators.

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 implies usage when one needs to list custom indicators, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other 'defender_get_*' tools or any exclusions. No alternatives are named, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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