audit_conditional_access_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the behavior: listing all CA policies and flagging non-enabled ones, with additional context about report-only policies being common audit findings. This discloses potential implications without stating side effects (which are likely none, as it's a read operation).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise with two sentences in the second paragraph and a clear structure: purpose sentence followed by explanation. It could be slightly more streamlined but is efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It states it lists and flags policies, but does not detail the output format (e.g., what constitutes a 'flag'). The mention of report-only policies adds useful context, but completeness is average.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add param info. Baseline is 4, and the description appropriately mentions no parameters implicitly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool audits Conditional Access policies for risks and explains it lists all policies and flags those not in enabled state. The verb 'audit' is somewhat generic but the elaboration makes the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description: use when you need to audit CA policies for non-enabled states. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the context is sufficient but minimal.

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