Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potentially large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning the target scope but not detailing pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited value given the annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve the list of Drive resources') without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy with the tool name ('list-drives') and schema, making every word count. The structure is clear and direct, with no wasted verbiage.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on result format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations provide safety and scope hints, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema or parameter guidance, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 100%, with all 11 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'top' for limiting items, 'filter' for property-based filtering). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying a target scope ('User, Group, or Site'), which isn't reflected in the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter use.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of Drive resources'), specifying the target scope ('for a target User, Group, or Site'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-folder-files' or 'get-drive-root-item' by focusing on Drive resources rather than specific files or root items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list-accounts' or 'list-calendars' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), compare with similar tools (e.g., 'search-query' for filtered searches), or specify use cases (e.g., browsing vs. filtered retrieval). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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