azure_analyze_backup_security

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what checks are performed and the return values, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The version note ('NEW in v1.14.0') is a minor behavioral hint.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with a version note and purpose. It is fairly concise and covers key aspects, though it could be broken into clearer sentences for readability.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and a long sibling list, the description provides a complete overview of purpose, checks, and return. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists checks that correspond to parameters (e.g., includeASR, checkImmutability) but does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 analyzes Azure Backup and Site Recovery security configurations, listing specific checks (encryption, soft delete, cross-region restore, etc.) and returns (vault security posture, backup coverage gaps). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on backup/recovery security.

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 usage for backup security analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other azure_analyze_* tools). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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