exchange_test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly identifies the tool as diagnostic and non-mutating by using words like 'diagnose' and 'tests,' and specifies the components being checked. It could add more detail about outputs or failure modes, but for a connectivity test tool this is adequate.

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 tight sentences deliver the core function, the specific checks, and the recommended invocation scenario. Every word earns its place, and the key usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to decide when and why to call it. It is self-contained and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'target' has an enum and a clear description ('Which endpoint to test, default all'). The tool description adds some color by connecting the 'powershell' endpoint to the PowerShell virtual directory and mentioning auth, but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 names a specific action ('Diagnose Exchange connectivity') and enumerates exactly what it tests: endpoint reachability, PowerShell virtual directory, and auth. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like mail flow tests or health checks.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when all tools return 404.' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative test tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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