sp_drive_checkout_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: the default operation is sub-second registry-only, verify=True incurs Graph calls and adds server_locked/lock_holder fields, and that check-in handles divergence at write time. It fully discloses the behavior beyond annotations.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It balances completeness with brevity.

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 (1 optional param, no required params) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, return values, performance trade-offs, and relationship to other tools (sp_drive_file_checkout, sp_drive_file_checkin). It is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 one optional boolean parameter 'verify' with default false and no description. The tool description fully explains its effect (triggers server-side lock check, adds fields, costs a Graph call), performance implications, and tie-in with check-in. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema schema.

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 'List the files this MCP profile currently has checked out' (verb+resource), mentions the origin (via sp_drive_file_checkout), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on checked-out files. It also defines what is returned (original path, checkout time, local working-copy path).

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 explicit guidance: default verify=False is fast (registry-only), while verify=True queries SharePoint at a cost. It explains when to use each mode and references sp_drive_file_checkin's ETag mechanism, implying when not to use verify. This is clear, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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