pbi_sharepoint_download_folder

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

The description richly discloses behavior: it validates max_files, max_total_mb, and extensions, uses temporary Graph URLs, verifies size and SHA-256, and publishes to outputs/sharepoint/. It also explains failure atomicity (removes staging, no partial folder). The read-only claim refers to remote SharePoint, not contradicting readOnlyHint:false which may reflect local writes.

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 and well-structured, with clear front-loaded purpose, a step-by-step process, failure behavior, and remote safety statement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's core workflow, validation, atomicity, and remote read-only nature, which is substantial for a complex download operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns. However, it omits guidance on recursive behavior and lacks explicit usage alternatives, making it nearly complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the semantics and validation for max_files, max_total_mb, and extensions, with an example for extensions. However, it does not describe site_url, folder_path, library, or recursive, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 downloads a SharePoint folder to outputs/ in an all-or-nothing manner. It uses a specific verb ('Descarga') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_sharepoint_list_folder.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude other tools. It mentions it is a remote read-only download, which implies safe usage, but does not name alternative tools or conditions for non-use.

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