manage_intune_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that export-job actions create an async Graph job, poll until completion, download CSV/zip, and return parsed rows capped at max_rows. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but the core async/export flow is described clearly.

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 long but well-structured as a scannable list. The opening line summarizes the tool's purpose, and each action is on its own line with a short explanation. The final paragraph explains the async export behavior without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and 20 actions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers each action's purpose and the async export flow. It does not detail per-action output schemas, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. Missing info on permissions and timeouts is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does name relevant parameters for many actions (e.g., report_name, filter_expr, select, max_rows for export_report; policy_id for status actions). However, not all parameters are explained (top, timeout_seconds, select in non-export actions), leaving some inference required.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for read-only Intune reports, endpoint analytics, and report export jobs. It enumerates 20 specific action values with concise descriptions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling management tools like manage_intune_devices or manage_compliance_policies.

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 opens with 'Read-only', signaling when to use this tool vs other management tools. It lists each action and its purpose, giving strong usage context. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools, but the sibling list and clear read-only scope provide adequate guidance.

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