defender_get_secure_score

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 and world-dependence. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the returned value is a device-scoped secure score and that higher values are better, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key interpretation ('higher is better'). There is no repetition, padding, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it names the exact metric and tells the agent how to judge the result. It could slightly improve by noting the response shape or probable range, but that absence is minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description additionally clarifies that the score applies to devices, which is the only input-relevant context. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Microsoft Secure Score for Devices'), and adds the evaluative note 'higher is better.' It distinguishes itself from sibling metric tools like defender_get_exposure_score by naming the exact score type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 the tool should be used when a caller wants the device secure score, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related scoring tools such as exposure_score or machine_group_exposure_score. There are no alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage context is present only by inference.

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