run_bp_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety and determinism profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact executable (xppbp.exe) and the nature of the output (BP warnings/errors with rule codes like BPErrorLabelIsText). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not detail side effects or failure modes, which is acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second describes the return type with concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, has zero fluff, and every sentence earns its place. Ideal structure for an agent to quickly parse.

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

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

For a read-only tool with well-documented parameters and a clear return type (BP warnings/errors with rule-code examples), the description covers essential context. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the rule-code examples. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the returned findings (e.g., list, grouping per object), but the included examples and parameter hints make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including usage hints (e.g., 'preferred over targetFilter', 'Auto-detected if omitted'). The description itself adds no additional parameter information, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 specific action ('Run Microsoft Best Practices checker (xppbp.exe)') and the resource ('on a D365FO project'). It also mentions the return type (warnings/errors with rule codes) and provides concrete examples, making it distinct from generic analysis tools like analyze_code or validate_code. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for running best practice checks but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives such as analyze_code or validate_code. It lacks guidance on conditions that would prefer this tool over siblings, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and stated function.

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