microsoft_outlook_status

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

Description states the tool checks if Outlook is connected, which is straightforward. No annotations are provided, so it carries the burden. It does not disclose what 'connected' means or what the response format is, but for a simple status check it is minimally adequate.

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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

Description is minimal. For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, it could still explain what the response indicates (e.g., boolean or status string). Adequate but lacks detail.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional meaning needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks connectivity to Microsoft Outlook. Verb 'Check' and resource 'Microsoft Outlook' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like connect actions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., microsoft_outlook_connect). Usage is implied as a prerequisite check, but no explicit instructions.

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