sp_drive_folder_list

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify SharePoint state,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also details the returned fields (name, type, size, last-modified, webUrl) and specifies 'immediate children' (not recursive), providing behavioral depth beyond the 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 two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains parameter usage and return details efficiently.

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 two parameters, zero schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, input format, behavior (read-only, immediate children), and output fields. The omission of `limit` is a minor gap, but overall satisfactorily complete.

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 `url` parameter is well-described with guidance on provenance and format, but the `limit` parameter (with default 100) is not mentioned. With zero schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the agent to infer limit's purpose.

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 immediate children of a SharePoint or OneDrive folder,' using a specific verb (list) and resource (immediate children of a folder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different resources or perform different actions.

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 explains what the `url` parameter expects (human-readable web URL from previous search or UI) and that it returns immediate children only. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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