Diagnóstico da última falha técnica do Outlook

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces that with 'somente leitura' and 'Não altera nada'. It adds valuable safety context by guaranteeing the tool 'não contém corpo de email, senha ou token', which is useful privacy information 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?

Two efficiently packed sentences: the first establishes the read-only nature, exact resource, and returned fields; the second provides usage triggers, a default-behavior prohibition, and a data-safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the session scope, the returned data fields, the usage trigger, the prohibition on default display, and the absence of sensitive content. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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, so parameter semantics are not applicable; per the baseline for 0 params, this scores 4. The description compensates by explaining the return fields, which effectively clarifies what the agent should expect despite the lack of an output schema.

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 specific verb ('retorna') and resource ('a última falha registrada em uma ação do Outlook Local nesta sessão do servidor'), and enumerates the exact returned contents: stage, mensagem técnica, and estado de conexão. This clearly differentiates it from generic status or resolution diagnostics among the siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('quando o usuário pedir detalhes técnicos, em que stage falhou ou algo assim') and provides a firm when-not rule ('nunca mostre esses detalhes por padrão numa resposta normal'). It does not name alternative sibling tools such as outlook_diagnostico_local or outlook_diagnostico_resolucao, so it stops short of a full alternatives comparison.

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