Answer natural-language questions about Microsoft Entra agent identities to audit roles, MFA, app secrets, PIM, conditional access, and privilege changes across Azure RBAC.
Interpreta perguntas sobre Agent Identities em linguagem natural.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating that the tool interprets questions, so it provides no additional transparency about result format, limits, or querying behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it is also somewhat under-specified given the number of sibling tools and lack of behavioral context.
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 natural-language tool with no output schema and no routing guidance, the description is too minimal to fully equip an agent. The large sibling list contains many overlapping tools, but the description offers no context to help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.
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 0%, and the description only loosely reinforces the 'question' parameter through the word 'perguntas.' The 'limit' parameter is not described at all, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it interprets natural-language questions about Agent Identities. This distinguishes it from other natural-language query siblings by domain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 use when a user has a natural-language question about Agent Identities, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_agent_identities, get_agent_relationships, run_agent_assessment, or other NL query tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.