generate_remediation_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It accurately states the tool generates a report and CLI commands, but omits details about side effects, required permissions, or whether the report is persisted. The description is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 that directly conveys purpose without superfluous words. It is concise but could benefit from slight restructuring to front-load key actions.

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 tool has one required parameter and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The existence of an output schema partly compensates, but the description does not elaborate on what the returned report or commands contain.

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 0% for the only parameter 'issues', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema type definition. It says 'from findings', but does not explain what the issues array should contain (e.g., structure, required fields).

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 it generates a Zero-Trust Markdown security report and dry-run CLI remediation commands. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_app_registrations, scan_conditional_access_gaps, and revoke_or_disable_app_registration by focusing on plan generation rather than auditing, scanning, or revoking.

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 'from findings' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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