Get Intune policy assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that output is 'normalized' and that the tool never accepts a Graph URL or path, providing useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns'), and each sentence earns its place. The second sentence adds a critical constraint without unnecessary verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations reduces the burden on the description, but the description does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor) or offer explicit guidance versus sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple getter but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and usage context.

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 only mentions 'one supported policy' and 'never accepts a Graph URL,' but does not explain the meaning or usage of limit, cursor, category, or policyId. The schema shows enums and patterns, but the description adds little to parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('policy assignments') with a defined scope ('for one supported policy'). It also enumerates the types of details returned (include, exclude, all-user, etc.), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like search_policies and get_connection_status.

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 clearly implies usage for a specific policy by stating 'for one supported policy' and warns against passing a Graph URL or path. It provides a clear context and an exclusion, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the siblings.

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