azure_analyze_function_apps

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

With empty annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return types (risks, configurations, policies) and implies read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention permissions or 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.

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

The description is well-structured with a bold version label, followed by a comma-separated list of analysis areas and return items. It is concise for the level of detail, though the version string could be omitted.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a comprehensive list of security checks and return types. It lacks behavioral or prerequisite details, but the scope is adequately covered for an analysis tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds overall scope (list of security checks) but does not enhance per-parameter meaning beyond the schema's already clear parameter descriptions.

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 'Azure Functions security analysis' and enumerates specific areas like authentication, VNet integration, CORS, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools (e.g., azure_analyze_app_service_security) by focusing on Functions.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., other azure_analyze_* tools). It omits prerequisites, context, or exclusions, relying entirely on implicit understanding.

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