Hey365 health check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb '確認する' implies a read-only diagnostic, and the listed checks add useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, whether external services are contacted, or what happens on failure.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's entire purpose with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the optional parameter detail is left to the schema where it belongs.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter, the definition is reasonable. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the return shape, success/failure indicators, or that the check is non-mutating, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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%: the single optional 'deep' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its effect on Outlook/Teams/Calendar reachability. The tool description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('確認する' / check) and names the exact resource scope: Work IQ connection, authentication, read/write permissions, and timezone. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hey365_send or hey365_setup, making the health-check purpose unmistakable.

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 health-check purpose makes it inferable when to use the tool: when verifying connectivity, auth, permissions, or timezone. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., hey365_setup) should be used instead, so routing is left mostly to inference.

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