Get Intune policy assignments

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds the constraint about not accepting Graph URLs/paths, which is extra behavioral context, but does not cover error handling or side effects beyond that.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action (Returns) and scope (one supported policy), and the second sentence adds a clear constraint. Perfectly sized for the information provided.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the core purpose and a key input constraint. However, it does not mention prerequisites like authentication or typical error conditions, though these may be implicit in the tool context. Overall, sufficient for a simple read-only operation.

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% for all parameters. The description only hints at a policy but does not explain policyId, category, limit, or cursor. It fails to map the 'one supported policy' concept to the policyId parameter or clarify the category enum's role, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings from names alone.

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 verb (Returns) and resource (policy assignments) and scope (one supported policy), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_all_device_assignments or list_all_user_assignments. The added note 'It never accepts a Graph URL or path' further clarifies the input expectation.

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?

Implies usage for a single policy via 'for one supported policy' and clarifies input format with the URL/path prohibition, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use them. The sibling names suggest the context, but the description itself could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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