Get Intune connection status

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that no token is returned or logged, a security-relevant behavior not covered by annotations. It also clarifies the scope as 'local delegated' authentication, though it does not elaborate on error states or latency.

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, 13-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Checks.' Every phrase adds value: the scope of authentication and the token safety guarantee. There is no unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, a read-only safety profile from annotations, and an output schema to describe results. The description covers the purpose and a key security property, which is sufficient for this simple tool. No major gaps are evident.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than nonexistent parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with the specific verb 'Checks' and resource 'local delegated Microsoft authentication.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on policies by indicating this is about authentication status. This is a clear, non-tautological description.

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 the tool is used to verify authentication status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools or provide alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance are given, so usage context is only implied.

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