Summarizes application provenance in the tenant, showing counts of tenant-created vs Microsoft-pre-provisioned apps with percentages for governance focus.
Resumo executivo da procedência das aplicações do tenant: quantas estão sob sua governança (criadas no tenant) versus pré-provisionadas pela Microsoft, com percentuais e foco de governança.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior; the description adds value by disclosing the analytical content: counts of governed versus Microsoft-provisioned apps, percentages, and a governance focus. It does not describe every output detail, but for a read-only summary tool that is not a significant gap.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then specifies the exact output dimensions: counts, percentages, and governance focus. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
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 parameterless summary tool, the description supplies sufficient context: what is summarized, the tenant scope, the categorical breakdown, and the metric types. Since there is no output schema, the description reasonably characterizes the return content without needing to enumerate fields.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description makes the tool callable without any input decision.
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 ('summarize') and resource ('application provenance') and clearly defines the scope: tenant applications categorized as created in the tenant versus pre-provisioned by Microsoft, with percentages and governance focus. The 'Resumo executivo' wording distinguishes this from the sibling list_application_provenance, which implies a detailed listing rather than an aggregate summary.
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 an executive summary of application provenance is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_application_provenance or other siblings. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'Resumo'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.