azure_analyze_vm_security

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

Annotations are empty, and the description does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. For a security scanner, it's likely non-destructive, but without explicit disclosure, the agent lacks critical 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 concise (two sentences with a bullet list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's main checks and return format (vulnerability findings with exploitation paths). Lacking output schema, this is sufficient. Minor omission: no mention of permissions or scope, but overall fairly complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing checks, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Virtual Machine security scanner' and enumerates specific checks (OS disk encryption, data disk encryption, etc.), which precisely identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools focusing on other Azure resources.

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 use for VM security assessment, and the extensive sibling list of other Azure resource analyzers provides implicit context. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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