Status da conexão com o Outlook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds useful behavioral context: no sensitive data is exposed, only what the server can verify directly, and it cannot detect the integrated browser or Claude in Chrome. It also adds a user-facing constraint about not mentioning COM, OAuth, MSAL, or Graph.

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 dense but front-loaded with the read-only status purpose before limitations and instructions. Every sentence carries useful guidance, though the third sentence is long and packs in multiple conditions, making it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially documents return fields and gives a fallback action when Outlook is unavailable. It does not enumerate every possible value of `proxima_opcao`, but for a simple status-check tool the agent has enough context to invoke and interpret 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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document; instead, the description adds meaning by mentioning the expected output concepts `disponivel` and `proxima_opcao`, which helps an agent interpret the result.

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 clearly says the tool reports whether the agent can work with Outlook now and via which route (local install or Microsoft 365 account). This is a specific verb, resource, and scope, and it is clearly distinct from mutating Outlook siblings and file-related tools.

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 explicitly says to use it before an Outlook action when unsure ('Use antes de uma ação de Outlook se não tiver certeza'). It also provides branch guidance for when `disponivel=false` and `proxima_opcao` points to a browser, telling the agent to follow server instructions for alternatives.

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