ews_keychain_status

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

With no annotations, the description responsibly discloses that the tool does not reveal the password and returns required_action and setup_command if credentials are missing. It could further clarify the return format when credentials are present, but the safety and action implications are covered.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a critical usage instruction. Every word adds value, 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavioral constraints, and required user action. The agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks EWS password credential availability from environment variables or macOS Keychain without revealing the password. It specifies the resource and action, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ews_setup_check by focusing on credential status.

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 indicates when to use (to check credentials) and provides an important usage note: the returned setup_command must be shown verbatim. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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