Sign in to Microsoft To Do

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It clearly states the tool uses device-code flow, returns a URL and code without blocking, and can report current status. This fully describes behavioral traits like non-blocking nature and output format, exceeding typical minimal disclosures.

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 sentences clearly front-load the core purpose and usage trigger, with second sentence specifying non-blocking behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, trigger condition, device-code flow, non-blocking nature, and what to return to user. No gaps remain for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so description need not add param info. The description briefly mentions the return values (sign-in URL and code), which adds some utility beyond an empty schema. A score of 4 is appropriate as it compensates with behavioral context.

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 ('Sign in') and a clear resource ('Microsoft To Do account'), explicitly mentioning the device-code flow and dual functionality (sign-in vs. status check). It distinguishes from siblings, which are all task/list management tools that require a signed-in state.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this whenever another To Do tool returns error 'not_signed_in'.' It also clarifies that this does not block waiting, implying the agent should relay the URL and code to the user. No alternatives are needed given the tool's unique role.

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