outlook_list_inbox_overrides

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

The description explains the meaning of the override rules themselves, but it does not disclose the tool's own behavior beyond listing. It lacks details about the return format, pagination, or explicit confirmation that no modifications occur, though the readOnlyHint annotation partially covers this.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the purpose and clarify the domain concept. There is no unnecessary information.

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 list operation with no parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what the data represents. It provides enough context for an agent to understand when to call it, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety expectations.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add any parameter-related semantics.

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 the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'the user's Focused Inbox per-sender override rules'. It further explains what an override does, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_inbox_override or delete_inbox_override. While the list operation is self-explanatory, no direct guidance is provided about using this for viewing overrides or modifying them with sibling tools.

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