ews_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it checks connectivity and does not read calendar items, which is transparent but limited. It could be improved by explicitly stating that it makes a test connection and indicating no side effects.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The primary action is front-loaded, and the 'does not' clarification is efficient.

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 simple connectivity check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it does not do. Minor improvement could mention expected output or typical result (e.g., success/failure indicator).

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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific information. According to calibration, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools with 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'configured EWS account can connect,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also explicitly says 'Does not read calendar items,' which distinguishes it from many sibling tools that operate on calendar data.

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 implies use for verifying connectivity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a negative statement about not reading calendar items, which helps prevent misuse, but lacks prerequisites or context for when this probe is appropriate.

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