list-outlook-categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return structure (displayName and color ranging from preset0 to preset24 or 'none'), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the tip adding relevant workflow context. No wasted words; every clause earns 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 list operation, the description covers the purpose, result structure, and a typical use case. Pagination and other advanced behaviors are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing. It lacks an explicit note on return format (e.g., it returns an array), but that's implied by 'get all categories' and the data 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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (e.g., top, skip, filter). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond omitting them entirely. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is 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 states a clear, specific action: 'Get all the categories that have been defined for a user.' It also explains what categories are (colored labels) and their data model (displayName, color), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from create-outlook-category.

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 includes a practical tip: 'Use this to show available tags before applying via update-mail-message or update-calendar-event' — this gives clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create-outlook-category, but it does name relevant sibling tools and a concrete workflow, so usage is well-routed.

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