Diagnóstico do Outlook local

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

The description reinforces the readOnly and idempotent annotations by saying 'sem alterar nada', and adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs a step-by-step diagnostic covering COM, MAPI, and discovered accounts. It does not describe the output format, but annotations already establish the safety profile, so the bar is lower.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted content: the first front-loads the read-only diagnostic nature and target, the second gives concrete trigger conditions, and the third prevents misuse by directing normal use to outlook_status.

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 zero-parameter investigative tool, the description fully covers when to invoke it, what it checks, and that it is safe. The output schema is absent, but the description's outcome framing ('verifica passo a passo se...está acessível') is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with 'Ação somente leitura' and a specific verb, 'verifica passo a passo se o Outlook Clássico deste computador está acessível (COM, MAPI, contas encontradas)', which names both the resource and the diagnostic scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostics like outlook_status by defining its role as troubleshooting a failed local access.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use when 'outlook_status disser que não conseguiu acessar o Outlook local e o usuário quiser entender por quê', or when technical details are requested. It also states the exclusion explicitly: 'Para uso normal, prefira outlook_status — esta tool é para investigar um problema.'

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