azure_scan_container_apps_security

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only scan but doesn't explicitly confirm no modifications or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The list of vulnerability types is useful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 sentence, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the long list of vulnerability categories could be better formatted (e.g., bullet points) for readability, but overall it is concise.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description lacks information about the return value structure or how to interpret results. It does not explain output format behavior beyond the enum, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the complete tool behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only lists vulnerability categories without explaining how parameters like resourceGroup or containerAppName affect scanning scope or output.

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 vulnerabilities in Azure Container Apps, listing specific categories like ingress exposure and secret management flaws. This makes the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools which target 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, nor does it provide context for prerequisites or limitations.

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