Outlook Assistant

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a mutable but non-destructive tool. The description adds useful context about what each action does (shows vs saves), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or file format support that would be helpful beyond the annotations.

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 perfectly concise with three clear, parallel sentences that each explain a specific action. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct operational guidance without any wasted words.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good operational context about what each action does. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what format the view action returns (metadata structure) or any limitations on download file types/sizes.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what each action does, but doesn't provide additional parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 with specific verbs ('manage', 'shows', 'saves') and resource ('email attachments'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read-email or send-email by focusing specifically on attachment 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 clear context for when to use each action (list for showing attachments, view for content/metadata, download for saving to disk), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like export or search-emails for broader email operations.

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