od_browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing states permissions, pagination, recursion depth, error behavior, or whether the folder must already exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the mode distinction parenthetically appended. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage, no parameter descriptions, and no pagination or path-format guidance, the definition is thin for a browsing tool an agent must invoke without further context.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains that path addresses a OneDrive folder and site_id switches to a SharePoint default-drive folder. However, it never explains the path default of "/" (root) or the null default on site_id.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (OneDrive folder), plus the two addressing modes (path vs. site_id for SharePoint default drive). An agent can distinguish it from od_download or od_resolve_link, though the description never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling list_* tools, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The path/site_id conditional is really parameter-selection guidance rather than tool-selection guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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