scan_conditional_access_gaps

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'scans' and 'returns structured findings' but does not explicitly state it is read-only. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or scope (e.g., all policies or filtered). Even though it's a scan, the agent cannot be sure it doesn't trigger actions.

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?

Two sentences, minimal waste. Each sentence adds value: first states action and targets, second describes output format. No redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output format. It specifies exactly what it checks (admin MFA exclusions, report-only mode). Could mention it is safe to run frequently, but given low complexity, it is mostly 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?

Zero parameters, schema coverage 100%. Baseline per rule is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed. The tool operates without inputs, so clarity on purpose is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool scans Entra Conditional Access policies for specific security gaps (admin MFA exclusions, report-only mode). It distinguishes from siblings like audit_app_registrations (different resource) and run_posture_scan (broader scan). Verb 'scans' + resource 'Entra Conditional Access policies' + specific focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Given sibling names like run_posture_scan (broader security scan) and audit_app_registrations (audit of app registrations), the description should state when to choose this tool (e.g., for CA-specific gap analysis). The AI agent lacks decision context.

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