audit_app_registrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions scanning and returning results but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a security audit tool, read-only behavior is likely but not confirmed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value: the scanning targets and the output structure are clearly stated.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and output (structured findings + summary), and the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details. However, the lack of parameter descriptions and usage context leaves gaps in completeness for a tool with two configurable thresholds.

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?

The description does not mention the two parameters (imminent_expiry_days, excessive_lifespan_days) or explain their meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only hints at the concepts (expiring, excessive) without connecting them to the parameters. The agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 scans Entra ID app registrations for specific issues (expiring secrets, excessive lifespans, risky permissions, insecure redirect URIs) and returns structured findings with a summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_conditional_access_gaps or run_posture_scan.

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 when auditing app registration security but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, conditions, or alternatives. Given siblings exist for similar tasks, some direction would help an agent decide between this and other audit tools.

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