Azure Infrastructure MCP Server

by artemkozlenkov

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely disambiguated by service-specific prefixes (aad_, acr_, webapp_, etc.), making it clear which service each tool targets. However, some generic tools like 'get_system_metrics' and 'check_service_health' could overlap with each other or with service-specific health tools, causing occasional ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a 'prefix_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., aad_create_user), but there are inconsistencies: some tools lack a prefix (list_vms, auth_status), verbs vary (list, show, get, view), and some names are not verb-noun (billing_budgets, account_clear). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 99 tools, the server is overly expansive, covering many small operations that could be combined (e.g., multiple subnet tools, separate list/show for nearly every resource). The large surface makes it harder for agents to select the right tool and increases cognitive load without clear benefit.
Completeness3/5
The server covers many Azure services (AAD, ACR, App Configuration, App Service, networking, RBAC), but has notable gaps: no tools for VM creation/deletion, storage account creation, or SQL databases. While core workflows for some services (e.g., ACR) are complete, missing fundamental operations in others limit overall coverage.
Average 3.4/5 across 95 of 99 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 10, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The lack of detail makes it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and includes an args listing, but it lacks structure or front-loading of key information. It is concise but at the cost of completeness, earning a mid-range score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values, but it still fails to explain what network rules are, their format, or any prerequisites. With sibling tools focusing on different ACR aspects, this description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The description simply lists the parameters without explaining their roles, formats, or constraints, which is insufficient for proper invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists network rules for a container registry, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like acr_list_registries and acr_update_network_rules. However, the phrasing is minimal and could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acr_update_network_rules or acr_show_registry. The description does not provide context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not describe what 'health' entails (e.g., return format, potential errors) or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'check' implies a read operation, but details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is appropriate for a simple tool, but it lacks structure such as a title or usage context. It is concise but could be clearer and more informative without increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is not complete. It omits behavioral details that agents need, such as what the health check returns and when it might fail. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. However, the description only lists the parameter name without adding any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain acceptable values, format, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the health of a system service. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'get_infrastructure_status', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, when not to use, or related tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the list action and parameter names. Missing details like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. Agents lack insight into side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and includes a labeled 'Args' section, but is incomplete. Every sentence should provide value; here, the lack of usage and behavioral information reduces effectiveness despite conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (2 optional params, no annotations, sibling tool), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify scope (subscription-wide vs specific registry?), pagination, or output format. Agents may underutilize or misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic semantic meaning: 'Resource group containing build runners' and 'Name of the container registry'. This adds value over schema titles but lacks constraints, format, or behavior when omitted. Could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List build tasks' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'acr_list_tasks', which likely covers similar or overlapping functionality. The agent may be confused about which tool to use for task listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are given. Sibling tools like acr_list_tasks exist but no differentiation is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (list) without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, error conditions, or any side effects. The agent has to infer safety from the action name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 lines) with no extraneous content. However, it borders on under-specification, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It is adequately structured but too spare.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to mention that it returns a list of repository names, nor does it cover pagination, error handling, or typical usage patterns. For a simple list tool, it is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about common expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides one-line descriptions ('Resource group name', 'Name of the container registry') that add minimal value beyond the parameter names. They lack details on constraints, format, or sources for these values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List repositories in a container registry', specifying a concrete verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like acr_list_tags or acr_list_registries, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acr_list_registries or acr_list_tags. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help the agent decide applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, required permissions, side effects). For a read operation, at minimum the read-only nature should be mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but includes a redundant docstring listing parameters (already defined in schema). This is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as what details are returned or how the task is identified. Parameter descriptions are missing, making it incomplete for a tool with three required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only repeats parameter names without adding any meaning or constraints (e.g., format, allowed values). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get details of a container registry task,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like acr_list_tasks (list) and acr_run_task (run).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acr_list_tasks or acr_run_task. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, destructive potential, or error conditions. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the action name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point. However, it is too minimal and lacks depth. While not verbose, the brevity sacrifices useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain return values, side effects, or practical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. The description merely restates parameter names with trivial descriptions (e.g., 'Resource group name') that add little beyond the schema. The boolean admin_enabled gets a slightly more descriptive note, but overall value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a container registry' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_create_registry and acr_delete_registry. However, it does not elaborate on what can be updated beyond admin_enabled, which is only hinted at in the parameter list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acr_create_registry or acr_delete_registry. The description provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Show details'. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or what 'details' includes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it is also under-specified. It lacks detail that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required params and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain output or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It merely restates parameter names without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows details of an App Service plan, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool appservice_plan_list, which lists plans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, safety profile, or whether starting is a read-only or mutating operation. It does not mention if it requires special permissions or triggers any background processes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) and not verbose, but it is underspecified for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations. While every sentence earns its place, the description is too minimal to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (but not shown), the description does not explain return values or postconditions. For a simple start action, it might suffice, but it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., web app must exist) and behavior (e.g., what happens if already running).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. It only lists 'name' and 'resource_group' without any format, constraints, or context. For example, it does not clarify that 'name' is the app name and 'resource_group' is the group containing the app, which is already implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Start a web app,' which is a clear verb+resource. The tool name and sibling tools (webapp_stop, webapp_restart) clarify that it starts a stopped or existing app, but the description does not mention prerequisites or distinguish from creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like webapp_create_for_container or webapp_restart. The description lacks context about required prior actions (e.g., the web app must already exist and be stopped).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only states 'Delete,' implying irreversibility, but no details on side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or error scenarios. Without annotations, the description carries insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but overly brief for a delete operation. Lacks structured details like example usage or important caveats.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists but description omits return values, success indicators, or error information. Incomplete for a tool that could have significant consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description lists parameter names without adding any semantic meaning beyond the schema titles. No hints on valid values, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a container registry task,' specifying the verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_create_task and acr_list_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'configure', implying mutation, but offers no details on permissions, idempotency, or effects on existing settings. This is insufficient for a configuration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be more structured (e.g., sections) and include a note about expected behavior without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered. But the description misses important context: prerequisites (e.g., web app must exist, subnet must be in same region), mutational nature, and potential side effects. For a 3-param configuration tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with brief explanations that add minimal value over the schema names (e.g., 'Resource group containing the web app'). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more. It does not clarify format or constraints (e.g., subnet ID format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('Virtual Network integration for a web app'). It distinguishes from sibling webapp tools like webapp_assign_identity or webapp_delete, as none of them mention VNet integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, its prerequisites, or conditions. It does not mention alternatives or caution about potential side effects (e.g., whether integration replaces or appends).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a container registry task' without explaining side effects, permissions needed, or whether the task runs immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but not optimally front-loaded. It includes a list of parameters with defaults, which is useful, but could be more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about the tool's behavior, such as idempotency, dependencies, or how it differs from running tasks. This is insufficient for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds default values and specifies 'Linux or Windows' for platform_os, but does not explain what these parameters do beyond their names. More semantic detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a container registry task,' which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acr_run_task and acr_delete_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acr_run_task. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states the action (delete) without disclosing behavioral traits such as irreversibility, impact on dependencies, or permission requirements. The description carries the full burden for transparency but adds minimal detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise with one sentence and an args list. No superfluous text, but it could be more informative without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema visible in description), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about operation impact, confirmation steps, or how the output schema (if any) should be interpreted. An output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description provides parameter names and the same information as titles (e.g., 'Resource group name') without adding meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names. It does not explain format, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a container registry,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like acr_create_registry, acr_update_registry, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., registry must exist), or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives or special usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'get' implying read operation, but no disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, credential format, or whether it works only with admin-enabled registries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but includes a parameter listing in docstring format which is redundant with the input schema. It is front-loaded with purpose but wastes space on parameter repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No explanation of return values despite having an output schema. Missing critical context such as credential type (admin user/password vs token), whether it returns JSON, and any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description lists parameter names ('resource_group', 'registry_name') without adding new meaning beyond what the names imply. No details on expected values, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get login credentials for a container registry' clearly defining the verb (get) and resource (login credentials for container registry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'acr_get_login_server' which retrieves login server URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like acr_list_registries or acr_show_registry. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (two lines) and follows a Python docstring format. While concise, it lacks structure and is overly minimal for a tool with three parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three required parameters, no enums, and an output schema. The description does not explain what the list returns or any additional context, making it incomplete for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the three parameters under 'Args:' but adds no additional meaning beyond their names. The input schema has 0% coverage with no descriptions, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List tags in a container registry repository.' It specifies the resource (container registry repository) and the action (list tags), distinguishing it from sibling tools like acr_list_repositories or acr_list_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Run a container registry task.' It does not mention asynchronous behavior, permissions, side effects, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present, the description omits critical context about the task execution process, prerequisites, or outcomes, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning. It does not explain what 'running a task' entails or how parameters affect execution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('a container registry task'), distinguishing it from siblings like acr_create_task and acr_list_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., acr_create_task, acr_show_task). The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what specific quotas are shown (e.g., storage, replication), or any prerequisites. It only states the purpose and arguments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes an args list that is not particularly informative. It is structured in a straightforward manner without wasted words, but the args section could be more concise by omitting it or integrating it into the main sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (minimizing need to describe return values), the description does not explain what kind of quota information is included (e.g., storage, webhooks, replication). Given the low complexity, more context is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter names with generic labels (e.g., 'Resource group name', 'Name of the container registry'). No additional constraints, formats, or lookup hints are provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Show quota information for a container registry', specifying the verb 'show' and the resource 'quota information'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like acr_show_registry and acr_show_usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acr_show_registry or acr_show_usage. The description lacks context for choosing between quota-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing rules are replaced or merged), required permissions, idempotency, or the impact of changing default_action. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is a bit redundant given the schema, but not overly verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly tighter by removing the parameter list and relying on schema, but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool modifies network rules, yet the description only mentions default_action. There is no explanation of what network rules are, how to define IP rules or service endpoints, or the overall effect. The tool's behavior is underspecified, especially given that no output schema details are provided in the description (though one exists). An agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source. It adds minimal value: for resource_group and registry_name, it merely repeats the parameter names. For default_action, it clarifies it accepts 'Allow or Deny' and has a default of 'Allow', which is helpful. However, it does not explain how default_action interacts with existing rules or other parameters. Overall, adds some value but remains thin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update network rules for a container registry', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_list_network_rules (read-only) and acr_update_registry (broader updates). However, it lacks specificity on what aspects of network rules are updated beyond default_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use default_action Allow vs Deny, or how this tool relates to acr_list_network_rules or acr_update_registry. The agent receives no context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must bear the full burden. While 'Show' implies a read operation, no details are given about side effects, error behavior (e.g., key not found), authentication needs, or the structure of the response. The description is too sparse for a tool with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with the main action in the first line. The Args list is redundant with the schema but not excessively long. It is well front-loaded and free of unnecessary prose, earning a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to mention any prerequisites, error handling, or behavior for optional fields like label. While the output schema exists, the lack of usage context leaves the agent underinformed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The Args list adds that resource_group is optional and label defaults to 'no label,' which clarifies beyond the schema's raw defaults. However, the value is minimal, and key parameters like store_name and key have no additional explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Show a specific key-value from an App Configuration store,' which is a specific verb and resource. While sibling tools like appconfig_kv_list and appconfig_kv_set exist, the name and description sufficiently differentiate the action (single retrieval vs. listing or setting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., appconfig_kv_list). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Estimate cost' with no behavioral details such as read-only nature, permissions, or aggregation. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, two sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, but lacks structure for parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool, but missing usage context, behavioral notes, and any mention of output schema despite its existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds brief meaning: 'Specific resource name' and 'Resource type (e.g. ...)'. Adds value but remains minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Estimate cost for specific resources or types' with verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling billing tools like billing_charges or billing_usage_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like billing_charges or billing_usage_details. No context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'delete' without disclosing behavioral traits like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. For a destructive action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a short sentence and a parameter list. It is well-structured and easy to read, though it could include a brief context sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists but unreferenced), the description lacks behavioral details and usage context. It is minimally complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a brief explanation for the required parameter assignment_id ('Role assignment ID to delete'), which provides meaning beyond the schema's title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a role assignment', which directly conveys the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_role_assignment and list_role_assignments_for_principal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when deletion is irreversible or requires specific permissions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'Scale'. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, asynchronous, requires permissions, or returns a result. Given the presence of an output schema, some description of what is returned would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single opening sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. Every word is functional, and it is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scaling behavior (e.g., manual vs. automatic), what happens during scaling, or what the tool returns. For a tool with three required parameters, more context would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by stating 'Resource group name', 'VM Scale Set name', and 'Target instance count (0+)', which clarifies the capacity parameter's valid range. However, it does not provide examples or further constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scales a Virtual Machine Scale Set, which is a specific action. It lists the required resources (resource group, VMSS name, capacity). Among siblings, no other tool mentions 'scale', so it is distinguishable, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for individual VM operations vs. scaling the entire set). There is no mention of prerequisites or context like the VMSS needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. It only states the action without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but the parameter listing is redundant with the schema. It is not overly verbose but lacks important contextual details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation tool, the description fails to provide preconditions, effects, or any context about the operation. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter names without adding additional meaning or constraints beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (assign) and the specific resource (system-assigned managed identity to a web app), distinguishing it from sibling tools like webapp_create_for_container or webapp_set_container_registry_credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any auth/rate limit requirements. The description only says 'list' but does not elaborate on potential side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with a structured 'Args:' section. It wastes no words, but could benefit from a slightly more explicit structure (e.g., stating return value or scope).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not specify the scope (subscription level or all subscriptions), preconditions, or how it differs from sibling webapp tools. For a simple listing tool, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'resource_group' parameter beyond the schema (optional filter), which is helpful. However, schema coverage is 0% and only one parameter is present. The description could clarify default behavior when the parameter is omitted (e.g., lists all in subscription).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('web apps'), and mentions optional filtering by resource group. It is specific enough to differentiate from unrelated tools, but could be more explicit about the scope (current subscription) to avoid ambiguity with sibling listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webapp_show for a single app, list_resources for all resources). There is no mention of context or preconditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. 'Verify' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no statement about side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Critical behavioral information is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks depth. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, yet it could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (return type unknown) and no parameters, the description fails to explain what the output contains or how to interpret results. There is no context on typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the meaning 'verify' to the empty schema, which is sufficient. It does not need to elaborate on parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Verify' and the object 'Azure AD tenant information', making the overall purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling AAD tools that create or manage resources. However, it does not specify what verification entails (e.g., connectivity, existence, configuration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases. There is no advice on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should compensate but only says 'Get', implying a read operation. No disclosure of authentication needs, scope, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no fluff. Could be expanded for clarity but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't mention what details are returned (list? summary?). Lacks context about subscription requirements or scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter info; baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Azure reservation details', matching the tool name. However, it doesn't specify whether it returns a list or a specific detail, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling billing tools like 'billing_charges' or 'billing_budgets'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get status,' implying a read operation, but lacks disclosure on required permissions, response size, or any side effects. The brevity leaves potential behavioral nuances unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes an 'Args:' block that largely duplicates schema information. It could be more concise by integrating the argument descriptions into a single sentence. Still, it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and no nested objects, the description partially covers what the tool does. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral detail, making it minimally adequate but with gaps in completeness for a read tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description adds 'resource_group: Resource group name' and 'account_name: Storage account name,' which clarifies the meaning of the parameters beyond their titles. This adds significant value for an agent selecting the correct inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get status of a storage account,' identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_storage_accounts, which lists all accounts. However, 'status' is somewhat vague without further specification of what status entails, but the output schema likely covers that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_storage_accounts to first find account names, or any prerequisites. The description only states the function without context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Stop a web app.' without disclosing how it stops (graceful vs. force), whether it requires authentication, or what state the app enters. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus parameter list. Every word serves a purpose. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description might be minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or behavior. It's sufficient for basic use but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names and types in the schema. It does not explain what 'name' or 'resource_group' represent or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Stop a web app.' which is a specific verb and resource. It readily distinguishes from sibling tools like webapp_start, webapp_restart, etc., which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description lacks any usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Listing implies read-only but is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two lines for the main purpose and two lines for parameter details. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters. Since an output schema is present, return format details are covered. However, it lacks information on pagination or filtering behavior, and no usage context. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to both parameters: 'filter' is described as an OData filter query, and 'top' is described as maximum number to return with a default of 50. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Azure AD applications, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like aad_list_users or aad_list_groups, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). No prerequisites or context provided for effective use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool returns a capped list (default top=50), pagination behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. This lack of detail leaves behavioral expectations unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument block uses a structured format. However, it could be slightly more organized (e.g., separating purpose from args more clearly) but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter details. It lacks mention of return format (list of users) and pagination behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: it explains the 'filter' parameter as an OData query with an example, and 'top' as a maximum count with default. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List Azure AD users', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like aad_show_user, aad_create_user, etc. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., listing all users with optional filtering).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aad_show_user or aad_list_applications. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection among similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. It only states the basic function ('get details') and mentions children, but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using one sentence plus an args block, and is front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids verbosity but could include a bit more context without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema covering return values. The description is adequate for a basic read operation, but lacks any information on error cases, permissions, or typical usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' block explains 'group_id: Management group ID', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title. This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of a management group including children, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'list_management_groups' which lists all groups rather than fetching a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_management_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'get detailed status' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear two-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could improve by integrating more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (likely covering return values), the description is minimally adequate for a straightforward read tool. However, it omits important context like the requirement that the VM exists, which could lead to errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats parameter names with minimal descriptions ('Resource group name', 'Virtual machine name'), adding no significant meaning beyond the schema titles. No format, constraints, or examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the detailed status of a virtual machine, using a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_vms, start_vm, stop_vm, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_infrastructure_status or get_storage_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'Delete' without disclosing any side effects, permissions required, or irreversibility. Limited transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus argument list. No redundant words or fluff. Structure is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context for a delete operation: synchronous behavior, success conditions, error handling, or whether it waits for completion. Incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description lists parameter names but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema titles. For instance, does not specify that 'subnet_name' must be the name of an existing subnet. Minimal semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a subnet from a virtual network', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_subnet_create, vnet_subnet_list, and vnet_subnet_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. deactivate, or prerequisites like existing subnet). No 'when not to use' or context about dependencies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states 'Delete', implying destructiveness. It does not disclose permissions, reversibility, impact on associated resources, or confirmation steps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences and a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose. No redundant information, though it could be more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple delete operation and presence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as what happens upon deletion, error conditions, and the return format. More detail would be beneficial for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists both parameters with brief explanations ('Web app name' and 'Resource group containing the web app'), adding meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions. However, the explanations are minimal and not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a web app', which is a specific verb+resource pair. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like webapp_list, webapp_start, etc., which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stopping a web app instead of deleting). There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions granting access via RBAC but does not disclose side effects (e.g., permissions required, propagation delay, reversibility). Limited behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded with action sentence followed by clear parameter list. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic parameters but misses prerequisite (e.g., web app must have managed identity), failure reasons, or output expectations. Output schema exists so return info not needed, but additional context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description provides parameter names and a brief hint for role ('AcrPull, AcrPush, etc.'), which adds slight meaning beyond schema. Other parameters are self-explanatory from names but lack additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Grant Web App access to Container Registry via RBAC'), specifying the verb, resources, and mechanism. This differentiates it from siblings like `webapp_set_container_registry_credentials` which uses a different approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `webapp_set_container_registry_credentials`). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as overwriting existing credentials, required permissions, immediate effect, or side effects. Only states 'Set container registry credentials' without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence followed by a structured argument list. No extraneous content; every line adds value. Efficient and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists (not shown) but description does not need to explain return values. However, lacks context on prerequisites or behavior (e.g., update vs. create). Adequate for a simple credential-setting tool but incomplete regarding operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Web app name', 'Container registry URL'), adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, explanations are minimal and lack details on formats or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Set container registry credentials for a web app', specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like webapp_grant_cr_access or webapp_configure_vnet_integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., web app must exist), and no when-not-to-use conditions. Implied usage from parameter list is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'View', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or details about what logs are included or excluded.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter listing is redundant with the input schema and could be more efficient by omitting the list entirely if the schema is sufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the log scope, filtering capabilities, or data volume. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete for a logs tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should add meaning beyond the schema. However, it only repeats the parameter names and trivial descriptions (e.g., 'Web app name') without adding context like format, constraints, or examples. The baseline for 0% coverage is higher, but the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('View') and the resource ('web app logs from Azure Monitor'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like webapp_list and webapp_show, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_activity_log, get_container_logs) might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states it gets a token 'for utilities to access Azure' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is a read operation, if it requires prior authentication, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and includes the main action. The 'Args:' section is a minor addition but does not waste words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about authentication state or what the token can be used for, which would improve completeness for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating 'resource: The resource/scope to obtain a token for (default: Azure Resource Manager)'. This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's default value, though it does not specify format or possible scopes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves an Azure access token, similar to 'az account get-access-token', which is a specific verb+resource. The tool name also reinforces this, and it is distinct from sibling tools that cover other Azure operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get details' without disclosing any side effects, permissions needed, or what 'details' entails (e.g., whether it returns nested properties or just metadata).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—only two sentences plus an args list. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Properly front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'details' are included or how they relate to the registry. Given the tool's simplicity, more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds brief clarifications ('Resource group name', 'Name of the container registry') but no further details like format or constraints. This is moderate added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details of a container registry,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_create_registry or acr_list_registries by indicating it retrieves details for a single registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acr_list_registries or acr_show_usage. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'health status' without detailing what checks are performed, whether it's cached or live, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no other documentation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to clarify the scope (e.g., global, subscription-level) or what a typical response looks like. Given the broad sibling set, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, but baseline for 0 params is 4, so this is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets overall infrastructure health status. It's a specific verb and resource, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like check_service_health or health_check, which are also health-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus more specific health tools (e.g., get_vm_status, get_storage_status) or what context is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as scope of assignments (tenant vs subscription), idempotency, permissions needed, or rate limits. Only a brief functional statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: two sentences plus argument list with no extraneous information. Purpose is front-loaded, and structure is clean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has an output schema which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description omits context about scope, authentication, or any constraints. For a listing tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'Object ID of the principal' and 'Resource group to filter by (optional)'. This adds meaningful context beyond schema fields, though format details are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List role assignments for a specific principal', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar siblings like 'list_role_definitions' but does not explicitly differentiate from other role assignment tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'create_role_assignment' and 'delete_role_assignment', but no indication of preferred scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authorization, or idempotency. The behavior when resource_group is not provided is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an Args block. No wasted words, but the format could be slightly improved with markdown.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on scope—whether empty resource_group lists all tags in subscription or only top-level—leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'resource_group' is described as 'Optional resource group to get tags from'. This clarifies the parameter's role, though further details on default behavior are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'tags' with scope 'in subscription or on a resource group'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'acr_list_tags' which lists ACR-specific tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose this over other tag-related tools or what happens when resource_group is omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions creating a vnet with a default subnet, but does not state idempotency, failure conditions, permissions required, or impact on existing resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short docstring with bullet list of parameters. Efficient, no wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values not needed. But description omits details like default subnet name, whether existing vnets cause failure, or any other preconditions. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds some value: explains address_prefix as 'Address space CIDR' with default, and location as 'Azure region (defaults to resource group location)'. However, param info largely duplicates schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a virtual network with a default subnet', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_list, vnet_show, vnet_delete which are read or delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., vnet_subnet_create for adding extra subnets). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Show details,' implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions needed, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the web app does not exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant information. It could be considered slightly under-specified but not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple show tool with an output schema (present), the description is adequate but does not cover edge cases or prerequisites. It provides enough for basic use but lacks completeness for error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that adds brief meanings: 'Web app name' and 'Resource group containing the web app.' This adds some value beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though still minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows details of a web app, differentiating it from siblings like webapp_list (which lists web apps) and webapp_restart (which modifies state). The verb 'show' and resource 'web app' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or contrast with other webapp operations. Usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It states 'get details' implying read-only, but does not disclose behavior like authentication requirements, error scenarios, or that it only returns one user at a time. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by an Args section listing parameters. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'details' includes or that the user_id is required and the UPN is optional. Slightly incomplete given its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds brief explanations ('Object ID of the user', 'User principal name (alternative lookup)') to the parameter names, but does not provide full semantics like format constraints or when to use one over the other.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'get details' and resource 'Azure AD user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aad_create_user or aad_list_users, which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aad_list_users for listing users, aad_create_user for creating). No context provided for when it's appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavioral implications like token invalidation, impact on existing sessions, or whether it is destructive. Minimal disclosure beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by explaining the outcome (e.g., 'subsequent API calls will need new authentication'). Lacks context on what happens after reset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 3 applies, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning since none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Reset') and the resource ('cached ACR client'), with the specific goal of forcing re-authentication. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aad_reset_client' by specifying ACR (Azure Container Registry) context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'acr_get_credentials' or 'acr_get_login_server'. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'restart' without disclosing behavioral traits like downtime, potential data loss, or the need for the VM to be in a running state. This lacks sufficient transparency for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a structured args list. It avoids unnecessary prose and is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it lacks context about side effects, posture (e.g., VM must be running), and when to choose this over siblings. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. The description merely repeats the parameter names as 'Resource group name' and 'Virtual machine name', adding no additional semantic meaning like constraints, formats, or examples. This adds minimal value over the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Restart a virtual machine.' with specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like start_vm, stop_vm, and deallocate_vm, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The tool name implies restarting a running VM, but the description does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or contrast with start/stop. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as downtime, authorization needs, or side effects beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter list. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many webapp sibling tools and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on the impact of restart (e.g., downtime) and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal context ('Web app name' and 'Resource group containing the web app') which slightly clarifies parameter meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restart a web app' clearly states the verb (Restart) and resource (web app), and distinguishes from siblings like webapp_start and webapp_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use restart versus alternatives like start/stop. Siblings such as webapp_start and webapp_stop exist but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only states 'create' without detailing side effects (e.g., duplicate handling, password expiry, default settings). No annotations provided; tool carries mutation risk with minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Clear, front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. No wasted words, but could be slightly more concise by grouping optional parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters and required fields. Output schema exists but is not referenced. Lacks context on error handling, idempotency, or post-creation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief semantic hints (e.g., 'Display name for the user'). However, missing constraints like format or length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Create a new Azure AD user,' with clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aad_delete_user and aad_list_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context about required permissions (e.g., admin consent). Only parameter roles are implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List tasks' without disclosing read-only nature, pagination, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, but the 'Args:' section is slightly informal. Overall, it is concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., registry must exist), what constitutes a 'task' (e.g., ACR tasks for automated builds), and does not elaborate beyond the basic operation. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds brief explanations ('Resource group name', 'Name of the container registry') that clarify the parameter names but are minimal and lack constraints or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List tasks in a container registry,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like acr_create_task, acr_delete_task, and acr_run_task, which perform different actions on tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The purpose is straightforward, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other list tools like acr_list_builds or acr_list_repositories. Implicit usage is clear for listing tasks, but lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Show usage information' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, permissions needed, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two lines plus a docstring format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no extraneous content, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description may not need to detail return values. However, the description lacks context about what 'usage information' includes (e.g., storage, count of repositories). It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists both parameters (resource_group and registry_name) and their basic meanings, but adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could provide more context like expected formats or sources, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show usage information') and the target resource ('container registry'). It distinguishes well among sibling tools like acr_show_registry and acr_show_quotas by specifying 'usage information'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieval of usage info, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acr_show_quotas or acr_list_repositories. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Delete' without revealing side effects (e.g., irreversibility, error handling for nonexistent keys). Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The arg list is included but not excessively verbose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple delete operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but lacks information on errors, return values, or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter (store_name, key, resource_group, label) with brief meanings. This adds value beyond the schema's titles and types, though details like key format are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a key-value from an App Configuration store, using specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like appconfig_kv_list and appconfig_kv_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as appconfig_kv_set or list. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits: idempotency (create vs update), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. As a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence for purpose and a clear bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient. Minor redundancy: 'Args:' heading is unnecessary for an AI agent, but overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature and absence of annotations, the description lacks operational context such as idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., store must exist), and error conditions. While output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the overall context is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'Optional content type (e.g. ''application/json'')'). This clarifies optionality and provides example values beyond the raw schema. However, it could still offer more constraints like allowed formats or max lengths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a key-value in an App Configuration store.', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like appconfig_kv_list (listing) and appconfig_kv_delete (deleting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as when to use appconfig_kv_set vs appconfig_kv_show or appconfig_kv_delete. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects, or pagination behavior. For a list operation, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two sentences plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks formal structure like sections or explicit notes, but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered. The description is adequate for a simple list operation, but it omits details like pagination, ordering, or that it returns an array. Slightly incomplete for a production tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only type and default without description, so the description adds value by explaining that 'resource_group' is an optional filter. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists App Service plans, specifying the scope as 'in the subscription or resource group'. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'App Service plans', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'appservice_plan_show' which shows a single plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by providing an optional filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_resources' or other plan-specific tools. No guidance on when not to use it is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose without mentioning side effects, safety, authentication needs, or what constitutes a health check result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is too vague. It does not specify what aspects of health are checked or how the output is structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resources: 'MCP server health and Azure SDK availability'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_service_health' which may target other services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_service_health'. No exclusions or context for usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool is a list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any other behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Given no annotations, the agent must infer safety from the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a dedicated line for the parameter, which is efficient. However, it could benefit from a brief note on output or scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic functionality and required parameter but lacks details on output (though output schema exists), whether accounts are from all subscriptions, or pagination. For a simple list, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a title 'Resource Group' and type string. The description adds 'Resource group name', which is only slightly more specific. With only one parameter and high schema clarity, the added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'storage accounts', with scope 'in a resource group', making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_resources' (broader) and 'get_storage_status' (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or context given. The description merely states what it does without usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose side effects (write operation), required permissions, error conditions, or behavior when the subnet already exists. Merely states action without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear arg list. It is efficient but could include a sentence on prerequisites or return value without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description lacks context about required preconditions (VNet existence, prefix validity) and doesn't cover error scenarios. It is adequate but not fully complete for a creation tool with 4 required params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by naming and explaining each parameter (e.g., 'Virtual network name', 'Subnet CIDR (e.g. 10.0.1.0/24)'). Schema has 0% description coverage, so this is valuable, though could be more detailed (e.g., prefix format constraints).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a subnet in a virtual network' clearly specifies the verb (create) and resource (subnet in vnet), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like vnet_subnet_delete or vnet_subnet_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., VNet must exist, address prefix must be within VNet range) or conditions under which creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the date range. No mention of read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a billing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and parameter definitions, no redundant words, and front-loads the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description is adequate. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, making it less complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format for both start_date and end_date, adding meaning absent from the schema. However, it does not explain the date range semantics (e.g., inclusive/exclusive).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists charges for a subscription with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling billing tools like billing_budgets or billing_estimate_cost, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the AI agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions fetching usage data with date parameters, but omits information about read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a billing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then listing parameters with clear labels. No wasted words or irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic functionality but lacks usage context, differentiation from siblings, and any mention of output schema or potential limitations. Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds value by providing format (YYYY-MM-DD) for dates and clarifying that resource_group is optional for filtering. However, it doesn't specify the expected format of resource_group (name vs. ID), preventing a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Azure usage details for a subscription', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling billing tools (budgets, charges, estimate cost, periods, reservations) by focusing on usage details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like billing_charges or billing_periods. It simply states what it does without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavior like idempotency, potential errors (e.g., container not found), or rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences including the parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) and does not describe the output format despite an output schema being present. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing parameters with explanations in the Args section: container_id (Container ID or name) and lines (Number of log lines to retrieve, default 50). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required/default fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Retrieve logs from a Docker container.' The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'logs from a Docker container' are clear. Among sibling tools, 'webapp_view_logs' is for web apps, and 'list_containers' lists containers, so this tool is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'webapp_view_logs' or 'list_containers'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'Restart a Docker container' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond restarting. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple restart operation, the description is adequate but lacks information about return values or error conditions. An output schema exists but its content is not described. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a meaningful explanation for the container_id parameter: 'Container ID or name to restart', which goes beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Restart a Docker container.' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like restart_vm and webapp_restart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop + start, or other restart tools). The description is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'start' with no details on prerequisites, side effects (e.g., if already running), or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no extraneous text. It earns its space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers the basic action and parameters. However, it lacks context on return values (despite output schema existing) and error conditions. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief explanations for both parameters ('Resource group name', 'Virtual machine name'). This adds some meaning, though it is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start a virtual machine,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_vm, restart_vm, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like restart_vm or deallocate_vm. Usage is implied but not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show details,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if the VNet does not exist). The lack of transparency beyond the basic function is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by two short parameter definitions. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions included information (subnets and peerings) but does not describe the full return structure, prerequisites (e.g., VNet must exist), or common errors. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description provides the only parameter definitions: 'name: Virtual network name' and 'resource_group: Resource group containing the VNet.' While these add meaning beyond the schema titles, they are minimal. The baseline is 3 because the description compensates but does not enrich parameter understanding significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as a virtual network, including subnets and peerings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_list (which lists VNets) and vnet_subnet_show (which shows specific subnet details), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates that the tool is for viewing details of a specific virtual network, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., vnet_list for listing all VNets) or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'List subnets', which implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as scope, permissions, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence for purpose and a two-line parameter list. Every word is necessary, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple list operation with two parameters, the description is mostly adequate but could benefit from additional context like listing all subnets within the VNet or any necessary permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief meanings for vnet_name ('Virtual network name') and resource_group ('Resource group containing the VNet'), adding value beyond the property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'subnets in a virtual network', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like vnet_list, vnet_subnet_create, vnet_subnet_show, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing subnets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vnet_subnet_show for a single subnet) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new Azure AD application' without disclosing potential side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or whether the operation is synchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one line for the purpose and a brief Args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though adding a bit more structure or separating purpose from parameters could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with an output schema, the description meets minimum viability. However, it omits context like required permissions, potential errors (e.g., duplicate display name), and the application scope, which would help an agent decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: display_name is 'Display name for the application' and sign_in_audience is 'Who can sign in (default: AzureADMyOrg).' This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new Azure AD application.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like aad_create_user and aad_list_applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it does but provides no explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing whether deletion is immediate, irreversible, requires permissions, or impacts related resources. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The 'Args:' list format is slightly unusual but still efficient. It could be slightly more natural but remains concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover deletion behavior (soft vs hard), permission requirements, or impact on linked resources. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but behavioral context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining that user_principal_name is an alternative lookup to user_id. This clarifies the relationship between the two parameters and how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('Azure AD user'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aad_create_user, aad_show_user, and aad_list_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two parameters (user_id as primary, user_principal_name as alternative lookup), providing some guidance on usage. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return value without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites, or error handling. This is insufficient for a complete behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear parts: a purpose sentence and an Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context on when the login server URL is needed (e.g., for docker login) and does not reference the output schema. Still, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (resource_group: Resource group name, registry_name: Name of the container registry). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the login server URL for a container registry', specifying the action (Get) and resource (login server URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acr_get_credentials and acr_show_registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like acr_get_credentials or acr_show_registry. Usage is implied but lacks exclusionary context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' metrics but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits. Basic behavior is implied but not explicitly safe/unsafe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (known to exist), the description adequately lists the metrics (CPU, memory, disk). It could mention the output format or update frequency, but given the output schema covers return values, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves system metrics (CPU, memory, disk usage). The verb 'Get' and resource 'system metrics' are specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on Azure AD, ACR, webapps, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vm_status' or 'health_check'. The description does not mention when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it differentiate from similar monitoring tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully describe behavior. It states 'list all Azure regions' but does not mention what the output contains (e.g., region names, display names, status). Since an output schema exists, the agent could infer some details, but the description itself lacks behavioral context like read-only nature or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. It is concise with no filler and follows a front-loaded structure: verb + resource + scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list operation with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks mention of result ordering or filtering, but these are unlikely to be relevant. Overall, it is nearly complete given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details because none exist, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all Azure regions available for the subscription.' The verb 'List' and resource 'Azure regions' are specific. The tool is distinct from siblings like aad_create_user or list_vms, which manage resources, while this is a read-only enumeration of regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. For example, it does not indicate if region availability varies by subscription type or if prerequisites exist. With many sibling tools, this omission increases cognitive load.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list) but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a list operation, these details are minimal but still absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, front-loading the critical information. Every word contributes meaning. There is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could be more complete by noting that it lists management groups accessible to the caller or mentioning any hierarchical scope. The presence of sibling tools also suggests that a brief differentiation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it could clarify the implied context (e.g., scope of listing). It adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb "List" combined with the resource "all Azure management groups", clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like "get_management_group" which targets a single group. It explicitly states its scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_management_group for a specific group). It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, which is a gap given the numerous sibling tools in the same domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond listing. It does not mention whether it requires authentication, if results are paginated, or what scope of subscriptions is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could add context about authentication or scope to be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds nothing further because there is nothing to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'Azure subscriptions you have access to', making the purpose explicit and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_vms' or 'list_resource_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_resource_groups' or 'list_management_groups'. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It states 'Create' but does not explain behavior on conflicts (e.g., if web app already exists), side effects, or output format. Does not discuss permissions or reversible actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clean bullet list for parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, no superfluous text. Could be considered a bit verbose but overall concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers parameter meanings but lacks high-level context (e.g., prerequisites like existing resource group and plan, behavior after creation). Enough for basic use but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding explanations for each parameter, including examples for plan_sku and uniqueness constraint for name. Some descriptions are minimal but still add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a Web App for Containers on Azure App Service', which precisely identifies the verb, resource, and service. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webapp_delete, webapp_list, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many webapp operations, but the description provides no when/when-not context or explicit usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of any behavioral traits such as permissions, pagination, rate limits, or side effects; the minimal text implies a read operation but does not confirm or elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter documentation; every line serves a clear purpose with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a list tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, additional context about the scope (e.g., which tenant) or access requirements would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters ('filter: OData filter query', 'top: Maximum number of groups to return (default 50)'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions (0% coverage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Azure AD groups' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like aad_list_users or aad_list_applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided; simply states the function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that the list includes tenants the user has access to, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not described), the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose without missing critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'Azure AD tenants you have access to', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aad_list_applications or aad_list_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to list tenants you have access to, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The simplicity of the tool partially compensates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that allocation and billing continue after stop, which is not obvious from the tool name alone. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences for the main behavior and a clean two-line parameter list. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the tool is straightforward, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (keeps allocation). It lacks mention of error conditions or asynchronous behavior, but for a simple stop operation, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It simply restates the parameter names ('resource_group' and 'vm_name') with trivial explanations ('Resource group name', 'Virtual machine name'). These add no meaning beyond what the parameter names already imply, thus the description fails to add value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop a virtual machine') and adds a key distinction: 'VM stays allocated, charges continue.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like deallocate_vm, which likely deallocates and stops billing. The verb-resource pairing and additional context make the purpose highly specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitely indicates usage when you want to stop a VM without deallocating, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for deallocation) or list alternatives. The sibling tools include deallocate_vm, start_vm, and restart_vm, but no guidance is provided for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but adds no further behavioral context. With no annotations, it fails to disclose any potential side effects or requirements beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by two parameter descriptions. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. It lacks mention of dependencies or usage context with siblings but is sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter descriptions add necessary meaning: specifying 'Name of the App Configuration store' and 'Resource group containing the store' clarifies the parameters beyond their titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows details of an App Configuration store, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like appconfig_list and appconfig_kv_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is read-only (get) and describes filters, but lacks details on permissions, scoping (subscription-level?), pagination, or behavior when no logs are found. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a one-line summary followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (likely detailing return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose and filters, but could mention scope (e.g., subscription-level logs) or time range behavior. Overall adequate for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: resource_group is optional, days has a range (1-7) and default of 1. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could clarify default behavior more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the Azure activity log (audit log) and specifies optional filtering by resource group and days. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_system_metrics or get_vm_status by focusing on audit logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving recent audit logs with optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it lists all groups, implying read-only, but no mention of auth, rate limits, pagination, or empty results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, extremely concise, front-loaded with key action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, description is adequate for a simple list tool. Lacks behavioral details but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'resource groups', and scope 'in the subscription'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_resources and list_subscriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the simple nature of the tool makes usage obvious. Lacks exclusionary guidance or comparison to similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation (list), but does not disclose aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The behavior is obvious but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using just two lines plus an Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose without repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks mention of default scope when resource_group is omitted, but overall completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds needed meaning. It explains that 'resource_group' is optional and used to filter, which clarifies behavior beyond the schema's default value and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List resource locks in subscription or resource group.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_resources or list_vms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many list operations, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it as safe or non-destructive. With no annotations, more explicit transparency would improve trust.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two short sentences with the main purpose and parameter explanation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. Could mention that it lists all VMs regardless of status or add pagination notes, but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining 'resource_group: Resource group name'. It provides basic semantics beyond the schema's bare type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), resource (virtual machines), and scope (in a resource group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_vm, stop_vm, etc., which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools or get_vm_status). No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as scope (current subscription), permissiveness, pagination, or potential large responses. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent without safety or performance hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. Every word contributes to purpose and parameter explanation. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. Could mention that it lists all VNets in the subscription by default, but it's still minimal. Output schema compensates for return format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the only parameter: 'Optional resource group to filter by.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema (which only has a title and default). With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List virtual networks in the subscription or resource group.' The verb 'list' and resource 'virtual networks' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_show (which shows a single vnet) and vnet_create/delete (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like vnet_show or list_resources. The description implies listing but does not mention when to use other vnet tools for details or management. Adequate but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' implies read-only, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., auth, limits) are disclosed. Adequate for a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose plus two lines for parameter hints. No wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is adequate. It specifies the resource (peerings for a VNet) and required parameters. The presence of an output schema handles return value details, so no further explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming and briefly describing the two parameters ('vnet_name' and 'resource_group'). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List peerings for a virtual network,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like vnet_list (lists VNets) and vnet_subnet_list (lists subnets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vnet_list or vnet_subnet_list. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the registry name must be globally unique, which is a constraint. However, it does not address side effects (e.g., cost, idempotency) or error conditions like if the registry already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be improved by front-loading more critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., resource group must exist) and does not mention when to choose this over other registry management tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful descriptions for all 5 parameters, including defaults and the uniqueness requirement for registry_name. Since the input schema has no descriptions, this adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new container registry', which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_delete_registry and acr_update_registry by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The purpose is clear, but the description does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites such as the resource group needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description indicates a read-only check with no destructive behavior, which aligns with expectations. However, lacking annotations, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication prerequisites. Adequate for a simple status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Check', no extraneous information. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0 parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage context. No additional details are necessary for a minimal status check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds context about what is checked (status and method) beyond the empty schema, fulfilling the need.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the function: checking Azure authentication status and distinguishing between CLI or Service Principal method. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on resource management rather than auth state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_show or health_check. Sibling tools include several auth-related commands but no differentiation criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description adequately implies a read-only listing. Lacks disclosure of any potential rate limits or authentication needs, but for a simple list, minimal is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundant information. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It succinctly explains the tool's purpose without missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb ('List') and resource ('available Azure billing periods'). It is distinct from sibling billing tools like billing_charges or billing_budgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs other billing tools. Does not mention prerequisites or context where listing billing periods is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral disclosure: it stops the VM, releases compute resources, and ends charges. However, it does not mention that the VM transitions to a 'Deallocated' state or that it's an asynchronous operation, which could be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose and one line for parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the core behavior. However, it omits details like the requirement that the VM must be running or that the operation is asynchronous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with only titles (coverage 0%). The description's 'Args' section adds minimal value: 'Resource group name' and 'Virtual machine name' are slightly more descriptive but do not provide constraints, formatting, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Deallocate' and the resource 'a VM'. It includes specific behavioral details 'stops and releases compute, no charges' which distinguishes it from siblings like stop_vm and start_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stopping billing and releasing compute, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_vm (which may keep resources) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is for listing (implying read-only) but lacks details on pagination, limits, or return behavior beyond what an output schema might provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an Args section, but the structure could be slightly improved for readability. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a simple listing tool, though it could mention that it returns a list of resources or any constraints like resource_type values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'resource group name' and 'Filter by type (all, vm, storage)', which are not present in the schema's titles or types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'resources' with scope 'in a resource group', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_resource_groups and list_vms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (listing resources) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools among siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it changes the session's active subscription, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid subscription_id), or whether the setting persists across calls. Given no annotations, the description provides basic but adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. While it is brief, it covers the necessary information without superfluous text. Minor improvement could be integrating the parameter format more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the core action and parameter format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It is fairly complete for a configuration setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter subscription_id is described with a format hint (xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx), which adds meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well by clarifying the expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the Azure subscription for the session, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Azure subscription' for session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list subscriptions or manage other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used before subscription-specific operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., list_subscriptions to find subscriptions first). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only and optionally filters by resource group, but does not mention default behavior (e.g., lists all in current subscription), safety, or error conditions. Basic transparency is achieved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two lines plus a parameter block—with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and efficiently structures the parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. It could mention that listing without a resource group applies to the current subscription, but overall it's sufficient for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting the resource_group parameter as 'Optional resource group name to filter by'. This adds clear meaning, though it could explicitly state the default behavior when omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'container registries' with scope 'in a resource group or subscription'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acr_list_repositories or acr_show_registry by targeting a different resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it does, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use acr_show_registry for a single registry or when to apply the resource group filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool creates an RBAC assignment, implying mutation. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., permissions required, idempotency, overwrite behavior) or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. No redundant information; each line adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose, all parameters, and the relationship between resource_group and scope. Could mention required permissions, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: principal_id as 'Object ID of the principal (user, group, or service principal)', role_definition_name with examples, and clarifying the optional scope parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new role assignment (RBAC).' The verb 'Create' and resource 'role assignment' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_role_assignment' and 'list_role_assignments_for_principal'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter explanations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is implied through context of creating role assignments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists running Docker containers on the local machine, but does not disclose prerequisites (Docker installed/running), performance characteristics, or what happens if no containers exist. The lack of behavioral details limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with a provided output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what it lists and where. Minor gap: could mention that it requires Docker to be operational, but overall complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline 4 as per instructions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), clearly identifies the resource ('running Docker containers'), and specifically scopes to 'the local machine'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'restart_container' or 'get_container_logs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies the tool is for listing running containers, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., Docker CLI, or when to use 'list_resource_groups' for non-Docker context). However, the context of sibling MCP tools makes the purpose fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a 'Show' operation, implying read-only, but does not explicitly state permissions, side effects, or output constraints. The description is adequate but minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with two sentences and an argument list. No unnecessary information; every part is relevant. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions key output components (NSG, route table, delegations). However, it could briefly note that other subnet properties are included. Overall, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing brief but clear meanings for each parameter: 'vnet_name: Virtual network name', 'subnet_name: Subnet name', 'resource_group: Resource group containing the VNet'. This adds value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show details of a subnet including NSG, route table, and delegations.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('subnet details'), and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like vnet_subnet_list (which lists subnets) and vnet_subnet_create (which creates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vnet_show, vnet_subnet_list). The description implies usage for obtaining detailed information about a specific subnet, but lacks comparative context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (reset cache, force re-authentication) but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or whether ongoing sessions are affected. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and provides only moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, a single action), the description is complete. The presence of an output schema eliminates the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered. Per guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resets a cached Azure AD client and forces re-authentication. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aad_create_application or aad_list_users, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when authentication issues occur or a fresh token is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation (get details), but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or contextual prerequisites. For a simple read tool, this is minimally acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the target (current subscription). Minor improvement could clarify what 'details' includes, but the output schema likely covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, meeting the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets details of the current Azure subscription, using a familiar CLI analogy ('az account show'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions' or 'set_subscription'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining subscription details, and the 'similar to' analogy provides context. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is given, though for a parameterless read tool this is largely adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but does not mention pagination, performance implications, or return format. The description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses a clear docstring format with bullet points, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers parameters and purpose adequately. It could mention whether results are paginated, but overall it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's purpose and defaults, including that resource_group speeds up lookup and key_filter supports wildcards. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List key-values in an App Configuration store,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like appconfig_kv_delete, appconfig_kv_set, and appconfig_kv_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the purpose and parameters (filters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a read operation, the description accurately indicates listing functionality. However, it omits details on permissions, pagination, or behavior with large datasets, though these are less critical for simple lists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes the parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers what it does and its arguments; the output schema handles return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the single parameter 'resource_group' as an optional filter, adding meaning to the schema which only provides type and default. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists App Configuration stores, distinguishing it from sibling tools like appconfig_show (single store) and appconfig_kv_list (key-values).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing stores, with optional resource group filter, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes read-only operations (list/get) but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or pagination. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering functionality and parameter usage. No superfluous content, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The description fully covers the tool's two modes of operation, making it complete for a list/get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains the budget_name parameter's optional nature and its role in retrieving a specific budget. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists all Azure budgets or retrieves a specific one by name. It clearly distinguishes two modes and relates to the resource (budgets) with a specific verb (list/get).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to omit the parameter (list all) and when to specify it (get specific budget). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear given sibling tools focus on other billing aspects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly characterizes a read-only, non-destructive listing operation. It could mention that it returns all built-in role definitions or any pagination behavior, but the current description is clear and sufficient for a simple no-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence that conveys the purpose without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. The description is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context by specifying 'built-in roles', but no parameter details are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'Azure role definitions', and specifies they are 'built-in roles'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_role_assignment and list_role_assignments_for_principal that deal with assignments, not definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not, nor alternatives are mentioned. The context of sibling tools implicitly differentiates, but the description lacks explicit usage context. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly warns that deletion removes all subnets and peerings, which is a key behavioral trait. The operation's destructiveness is clear, though other details like authorization needs are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with only three lines. It front-loads the action and critical warning, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple deletion with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, required parameters, and a crucial behavioral warning. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. This is sufficiently complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides basic semantics: 'name: Virtual network name' and 'resource_group: Resource group containing the VNet'. This adds value beyond the property names, though minimally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a virtual network' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vnet_create, vnet_list, and subnet operations by the deletion action and the warning about cascading effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting a virtual network with awareness of consequences (subnets/peerings removed), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. The warning provides some guidance but not full usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description explains that it resets in-memory subscription override and cached SDK clients, causing next operations to re-authenticate. This is transparent about behavioral effects, though could include caveats like potential need for user interaction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (no params), output schema exists, and description covers operation and effect. Context is complete given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 applies per rules since schema coverage is high (100%) and description adds no param details needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it clears cached Azure credentials and subscription override, with a verb (clear) and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like account_get_access_token or account_show by mentioning 'similar to az account clear' and specifying the effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied clearly: when you need to reset cached credentials for re-authentication. However, no explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, though the context makes it obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![azops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/artemkozlenkov/azops-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/artemkozlenkov/azops-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![azops-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/artemkozlenkov/azops-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/artemkozlenkov/azops-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/artemkozlenkov/azops-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server