outlook_list_thread

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full weight. It details that results are chronological and that concise=True drops quoted text from previews, saving ~10x tokens. This is good behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second adds essential usage details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main input requirements and a key option (concise). The count parameter is not mentioned, which is a minor gap that slightly reduces completeness.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains conversation_id (where to get it) and concise (effect), but omits the count parameter. This leaves a gap in understanding for the user.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all messages in a conversation thread, chronological order.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like outlook_read_message by specifying it lists an entire thread, not just a single message.

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 states that a conversation_id from a message's metadata is needed, and describes the concise option for token savings. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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