sharepoint_debug_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It explicitly states values are masked and no plain text is revealed, which is key for a debug tool that handles sensitive data. It also implies read-only diagnostics. It does not mention any side effects or authentication requirements, but for this simple tool, the disclosure is 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds the purpose and constraint (masked values). No unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only diagnostic), the description is complete. It covers the what, why, and a key behavioral constraint (masked values). An output schema exists, so return values are covered there. The tool's context within the sibling set is clear (debugging authentication headers).

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter detail, which is fine.

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 it lists headers of the current request (values masked), which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It uses the verb 'lists' and the resource 'headers', making it distinct from sibling tools like sharepoint_login_start or sharepoint_read_file.

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 specifies a concrete use case: identifying how Cleyrop transmits the SHAREPOINT_REFRESH_TOKEN header. This gives guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, so it's slightly lacking in full usage context.

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