Describe / recover schema

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits: it 'inspects' (read-only) and 'proposes only — applies nothing', so no destructive action. Clear about its safe, non-modifying nature.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more concise (e.g., parentheses). Still very well structured.

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?

Tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. Description explains purpose, usage, and behavior adequately. Lacks mention of output format but sufficient for its simplicity.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic info beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it inspects raw IndexedDB stores and proposes a field mapping. Distinct from sibling tools which deal with people, conversations, messages, search, and topics.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: when schema is unrecognized after a Teams update or to inspect DB structure. Also clarifies it only proposes, not applies, and requires human verification.

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