outlook_whoami

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It correctly suggests a read-only operation but does not disclose potential side effects, response format, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and output fields. However, without an output schema, adding a brief note about the return value structure would improve 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what the profile contains (display name, email, ID), which is not evident from the empty schema.

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 'Get' and the resource 'authenticated user's profile' with specific fields (display name, email, ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_auth_status or outlook_list_accounts by focusing on profile retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it's for getting the current user's info, but no exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided.

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