microsoft_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool performs a LIVE credential check against Microsoft, which implies network access and up-to-date validation, as opposed to reading local file state. It also explains the meaning of the 'needs_reauth' tokenStatus, offering useful output interpretation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or latency, though for a status check these are less critical.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the tool's core function and a key nuance (LIVE vs local). The second sentence provides an actionable conditional that enriches the output understanding. Every element earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main 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 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what the key output value means, and what action to take if that value appears. This gives the agent a full procedural loop. The 'not just local file state' clarification adds important context about the check's real-time nature, covering the tool's operational context adequately.

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 needs to explain no input semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists; the schema is empty, and the tool is entirely stateless from an input perspective.

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 a specific action: 'Check connection health for all configured Microsoft accounts'. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing a 'LIVE credential check against Microsoft (not just local file state)', which differentiates it from sibling tools that might check local state. The mention of the tokenStatus output and its meaning further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 gives a clear directive for when re-authorization is needed: 'tokenStatus 'needs_reauth' means run microsoft_auth for that account', explicitly naming the alternative tool and the condition to use it. It implies this tool is used to assess connection health, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other exclusions, leaving a slight gap.

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