outlook_agenda_semana

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retorna' discloses a read-only operation, but nothing is said about return structure, event fields, ordering, timezone handling, or how edge cases (e.g., dias=0, canceled events) behave. For an unannotated tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and scope with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could have included a second sentence on behavior or return format without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose what the returned events look like, but it is silent on return format. It also fails to clarify the selection boundary versus outlook_agenda_hoje. The calling contract (params) is covered, but an agent still lacks key operational details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'N dias' which maps to the dias parameter and adds nothing beyond the schema about the usuario parameter or value constraints. The schema already carries the meaning, so no penalty, but also no added value.

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 ('Retorna'/'Returns') with a clear resource ('eventos no calendário') and a scoping qualifier ('próximos N dias'). It is distinguishable from the sibling outlook_agenda_hoje through the 'N dias' scope and from inbox/detail tools by the resource. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied: 'próximos N dias' suggests this is for multi-day lookahead windows, implicitly distinct from outlook_agenda_hoje (today only) and outlook_detalhes_evento (singular event). But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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