ews_setup_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ready flag and, if false, provides user_message or setup_command. This is adequate for a simple check tool, though it does not detail error handling or throttling, which are likely not applicable.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the EWS workflow (setup check before scheduling) and what information it provides (ready flag, user_message/setup_command). No additional details are needed.

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 meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool returns and the conditions under which it returns different values. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without needing an output 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return whether EWS setup is ready', and specifies the checks performed (env and password/Keychain). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on meetings and calendar operations.

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 implicit usage guidance by saying 'stop before scheduling when ready is false', indicating the tool should be used before scheduling operations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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