sharepoint_check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently details that the tool reads the SHAREPOINT_REFRESH_TOKEN variable, attempts to obtain an Entra ID access token, and returns the exact error if refused. It also clarifies it does not launch a transfer, making behavior clear.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds context and detail. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema (context signals indicate its presence), the description is complete. It explains the tool's function, input (env variable), and behavior on error. No further detail needed.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter info, as none are needed. Schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 explicitly states the tool verifies that a configured refresh token gives access to SharePoint. It uses specific verbs ('vérifie') and distinguishes from siblings like sharepoint_login_start/finish and transfer tools by noting it's for diagnosing auth problems without launching a transfer.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('pour diagnostiquer un problème d'authentification sans lancer un transfert'). It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context implies it's for pre-checks.

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