exchange_get_virtual_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the resource is clearly identified, but there is no disclosure of default behavior when parameters are omitted, whether a server filter is needed, permissions, or output format. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 clear sentence with no fluff, and the supported protocol types are front-loaded in parentheses for quick scanning. It is appropriately sized, though it could sacrifice some brevity to explain parameter behavior.

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?

Given that there are no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens when no type or server is provided, what the response contains, or any constraints on the server parameter. An agent cannot confidently know the full behavior from this description alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It names the protocol types that map to the 'type' enum, but that information is already present in the schema. The 'server' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('virtual directories'), with a parenthetical enumerating the relevant protocol types (OWA/ECP/EWS/ActiveSync/MAPI). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target virtual directories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about when it would be the appropriate choice. It is only a bare statement of what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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