Check OWA Session

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying that the tool makes one light authenticated call to the mailbox, not just a cookie-file check, and that the result covers both credentials and host reachability. This adds useful behavioral context about the network call involved, which annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Is the OWA session live?'). The additional sentence provides essential detail about the method without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, how it works, and its scope. There are no significant gaps.

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, so the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter syntax. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 defines the tool as a health check for the OWA session, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_folders, send_email) by explaining it verifies connection health rather than performing a mailbox operation.

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 the tool: to check if the OWA session is live and the host reachable. It notes that it is independent of any particular tool, implying it is a general connectivity check. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the unique purpose makes the intended use obvious.

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