run_ca_whatif

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it simulates a sign-in and returns policy application results, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention the absence of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and method, the second states the output. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear high-level outcome ('Returns which policies apply, block, or grant'). It is sufficient for the tool's apparent simplicity, though it lacks explicit guarantees about non-mutation, auth requirements, or output structure. Overall, it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The parameters (userId, appId, ipAddress, devicePlatform, deviceCompliant) are self-explanatory and do not require additional narrative from the description.

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 specific action (simulate a user sign-in) and the resource (Conditional Access policies), along with the method (Graph evaluate API). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one focused on CA policy simulation rather than Maester tests or security posture.

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 usage is implied: you would use this tool to simulate a sign-in to evaluate Conditional Access policy outcomes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. It provides a clear functional purpose but lacks explicit usage context.

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