List unassigned Intune policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: it clarifies that graphUsage reflects only the current call, that results include an opaque continuation cursor for pagination, and that resultCount is per-page. This transparency about pagination and result semantics goes beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary action and resource in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail: category guidance, result fields, and pagination semantics. No extraneous information or redundant phrasing is present, making it highly efficient.

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 description covers the tool's main purpose, return fields, pagination, and a parameter hint, which is substantial given the output schema and annotations. It does not explain what 'supported' means or how platform filtering behaves, leaving minor gaps. However, the combination of description, annotations, and schema makes the tool reasonably complete for an agent.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries a heavy burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the category parameter for apps and hints at the cursor's role ('opaque continuation cursor'). However, it does not clarify the limit or platform parameters; the schema provides constraints for limit (min/max/default) but platform is only a string with max length. Thus, while some parameters gain meaning, others remain under-explained, resulting in an average score.

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 lists supported Intune policies and applications with empty assignment collections, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_policies and list_all_device_assignments by focusing on unassigned items. The phrasing is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (finding unassigned policies/applications) and includes a specific usage hint for apps: setting category to application. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use case is well-implied. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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