manage_intune_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It labels two actions as 'export job' but never says whether jobs are async, whether polling is required, what permissions are needed, or that most actions are read-only reads while exports trigger background work.

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 one-line scope statement is front-loaded, and the action list is compact and scannable with aligned glosses. It is long by necessity for 18 actions, but every line carries information and there is no filler prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a multi-action tool with no annotations and undocumented shared parameters (top, body), the description leaves gaps around pagination behavior and the export-job lifecycle that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping policy_id, app_id, and device_id to the specific actions that require them. However, the top and body parameters are never explained, and the action values are not enforced as an enum in the schema, so the mapping is the only guardrail.

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?

States a specific resource (Intune reports, endpoint analytics, export jobs) and enumerates 18 named actions, each with a short gloss. An agent can identify what this tool covers versus device/app/policy management siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 action list implies which action maps to which report, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to sibling tools for adjacent tasks. Usage is left to inference from action names.

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