azure_scan_cdn_security

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only scan ('detect') but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or output structure. For a security scanner, this is minimally adequate but leaves uncertainty.

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 focused sentence that lists multiple vulnerability categories. It is concise and front-loaded with action and target. Could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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 of a security scanning tool and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose but omits typical output format, prerequisite permissions, and interpretation guidance. It is minimally complete but lacks richness for optimal agent decision-making.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (subscriptionId, resourceGroup, profileName, format). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, achieving the baseline 3.

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 detects misconfigurations for Azure CDN and Front Door, listing specific vulnerability types (origin exposure, caching exploits, WAF bypass, etc.). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like azure_scan_sql_databases or azure_scan_acr_security by specifying the exact Azure services it targets.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indications of scenarios where it should not be used. Among many similar scanning siblings, this omission forces the agent to guess selection criteria.

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