outlook_detalhes_evento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads the full body of an event, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether it requires exact title matching, how it handles multiple events with the same title, or whether it returns the body in a specific format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and gives concrete examples of use. It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage guidance.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like duplicate titles, partial matches, or what happens if the event is not found. Given the sibling tools include editing and creating events, a bit more context on how this read tool fits in would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that the parameters are used to locate the event, but it does not add details like whether 'titulo' supports partial matching or whether 'data' is required for disambiguation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the basics.

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 states a specific verb ('Lê') and resource ('corpo completo de um evento'), and gives concrete use cases (PNR de voo, link Teams, notas). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like outlook_editar_evento or outlook_criar_evento.

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 when to use it: when you need the full body of an event, especially for details like PNR or Teams link. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as outlook_agenda_hoje for a summary or outlook_editar_evento for modifying the event.

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