graph_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List files' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not say whether folders are included, whether traversal is recursive, whether results are paginated, or what metadata is returned.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or tangential information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits path semantics, return value shape, pagination behavior, and the difference between OneDrive and SharePoint drive handling, leaving important gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Drive Id' is understandable from its name, but the optional 'path' parameter is not explained at all - the agent is left guessing whether it is a folder path, file path, or Graph item path. The description merely repeats 'drive' rather than clarifying inputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List files in a OneDrive or SharePoint drive via Microsoft Graph.' This immediately makes the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling Graph-based tools like graph_mail and graph_user, and from listing tools like onelake_ls, by scoping to OneDrive/SharePoint drives.

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 implies this tool is for listing files in OneDrive or SharePoint drives, giving the agent a sense of when it should be selected. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving the usage boundary to be inferred from the sibling tool list.

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