run_bp_check

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which already signal a safe read-only operation. The description adds the return type (BP findings with rule codes) but does not detail any side effects, prerequisites, or limitations beyond running the checker. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but lacks deeper 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.

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then gives return details. No filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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

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

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format (BP warnings/errors with rule codes). Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and read-only annotations, the overall picture is fairly complete. Slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning how results are grouped or any environment prerequisites, but these are minor gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 runs Microsoft Best Practices checker (xppbp.exe) on a D365FO project and specifies the return type (BP warnings/errors with rule codes). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis/validation tools like analyze_code or validate_code by naming the specific executable and giving example rule codes.

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

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. While the schema hints at parameter preferences (e.g., objects[] preferred over targetFilter), that is param-level guidance, not tool-selection context. Thus, the agent is left without clear when-to-use direction.

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