cipp_get_tenant_alignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it reports alignment percentages without modification, which is consistent with the read-only nature. No contradictions are present.

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 long with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary function and efficient context, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output (alignment percentage), the key use case, and parameter behavior. No gaps are present.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds value by reinforcing that omitting tenantFilter reports on all tenants, which is already implied in the schema but now explicit. This improves understanding without redundancy.

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 reports alignment percentage per tenant against standards templates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cipp_list_standards or cipp_list_standard_templates. It specifies the verb 'report' and the resource 'tenant alignment', making the purpose precise and actionable.

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 a key use case: deciding which standards to promote to Remediate. It also explains when to omit the optional parameter for reporting on all tenants. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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