ado_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating it does not read credentials or perform a login test, telling the agent this is safe to call for inspection without triggering auth side effects. It stops short of describing response shape, but with no output schema that is a minor omission given the enumerated data categories.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The capability list is front-loaded and the negative scope statement follows in the natural place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the four categories of information returned and explicitly bounds the operation. The one gap is the absence of any sibling comparison, which matters given how similar ado_context sounds.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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 uses the specific verb "Describe" and enumerates exactly what is returned: profile names, provider types, allowed organizations, and bindings. An agent can tell this is a local configuration-inspection tool, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ado_context, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

"Does not read credentials or test login" implicitly scopes usage by ruling out authentication verification, but the description never states when an agent should call this rather than ado_context or ado_projects_list. Usage must be inferred from the returned-data list rather than read directly.

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