microsoft_list_sharepoint_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals authentication context (JWT, tenant, company scope) and that it's a connector operation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. Partial 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 short (three sentences) but includes unnecessary routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke'). It is not front-loaded with the most important purpose. Functionally concise but could be better structured to prioritize tool selection information.

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 is a listing operation, the description lacks information about output format, pagination, filtering, or sorting. An output schema exists but is not described. No examples or result shape are provided, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

Only one parameter 'arguments' (string, JSON) with 0% schema description coverage. The description says it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify what arguments are valid or the expected structure. This leaves the agent guessing about required keys, default values, or optional fields.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate it lists SharePoint sites. The description adds that it operates under JWT/tenant/company scope, clarifying the resource scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like microsoft_list_sharepoint_drives or microsoft_list_drive_files, which list related but distinct resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when to prefer other SharePoint listing tools. The description only provides technical routing details, not usage context.

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