Outlook Assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this operation requires specific permissions, what happens if a rule with the same name exists, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response format looks like for a creation operation.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid rule, how rules interact with existing ones, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the email system's rule execution model.

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 100% description coverage, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond the schema's comprehensive documentation, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 action ('creates') and resource ('new inbox rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'edit-rule-sequence' or explain what distinguishes rule creation from other email management operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'edit-rule-sequence' and 'list-rules' available, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for initial setup versus modification, or what prerequisites might exist for creating inbox rules.

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