pbi_sharepoint_list_folder

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it follows Graph pagination, can traverse subfolders recursively, and details the app-only authentication mechanism, including that secrets are only read from environment variables and never accepted or returned. This is rich, relevant transparency.

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: three short paragraphs front-loading the primary purpose, then usage details and authentication constraints. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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 core aspects: connection, purpose, pagination, recursion, and authentication. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists. It could mention error conditions or response structure, but overall it is adequately complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains site_url, library, and folder_path, and implies max_items and recursive through 'limite total explicito' and 'recorrer subcarpetas', but does not explicitly define all parameters or their formats. Partial coverage with gaps.

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: 'Conecta con SharePoint Online y lista una carpeta mediante Graph.' It specifies the action (list), resource (folder), and method (Graph), and distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_sharepoint_download_folder by focusing on listing rather than downloading.

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 about what the tool does and how it connects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The use case is implied (listing folder contents without downloading), and no exclusionary guidance is given.

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