Hey365 triage (alias)

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool investigates and extracts items, but does not mention potential side effects like draft generation (implied by includeDrafts), permission requirements, or whether it mutates data. The parameter includeDrafts suggests the tool may create drafts, but this is not disclosed in the description.

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 brief sentences, front-loading the alias relationship and then stating the core function. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for a simple alias tool.

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?

The description lacks critical information such as return value format, behavioral side effects, and usage distinctions. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent needs more detail about what the tool returns and whether it has write-side effects. The includeDrafts parameter is particularly ambiguous without explanation in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat schema details. It adds the phrase 'past N hours' which maps to the hours parameter, but this is already in the schema description. No additional meaning is provided for limit, sources, or includeDrafts.

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 explicitly states it is the same as hey365 and provides the action 'investigate M365 for the past N hours and extract items requiring action.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from other siblings like hey365_health or hey365_setup. However, since hey365 is a sibling, the description relies on the alias relationship rather than fully independent differentiation.

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 only says 'same as hey365' and gives no conditions for when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for comparison. An agent cannot tell whether to call this or hey365, as both appear to serve identical purposes.

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