outlook_list_tasks

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the valid status vocabulary, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or how count/cursor interact — meaningful gaps for a read tool returning pageable results.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with the enum values isolated for quick scanning. Minor waste in restating the parameter name twice, but nothing bloated.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only one parameter's value space. Without any explanation of list_id provenance or paging via count/cursor, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters. It documents only `status` (with values absent from the schema, a real addition) and leaves `list_id`, `count`, and `cursor` entirely unexplained — notably `list_id`, whose origin in outlook_list_task_lists an agent would never learn from either field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks in a To Do list') and confines scope to a single list, which distinguishes it implicitly from outlook_list_task_lists. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or note that it does not return the lists themselves, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives such as outlook_get_task for a single task or outlook_list_task_lists for enumerating lists. The optional status filter hints at a use case but never states it.

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