outlook_get_sharepoint_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the same authenticated session as Outlook and handles sharing links, but lacks details on read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or file size limits. The mention of 'fetch' implies reading but does not confirm safety.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The verb 'Fetch' is front-loaded, and the essential information (session reuse, sharing links, parameter condition) is conveyed 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 no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (metadata vs content). The downloadContent parameter implies content is optional, but the description does not mention the return format. For a tool with multiple identification methods and a download option, this leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: the mutual exclusivity of sharePointUrl and fileId is implied ('Either ... OR'), and it explains that sharePointUrl comes from emails. This goes beyond the schema's required-if-not-provided phrasing.

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 it fetches a SharePoint file using the Outlook session and handles sharing links from emails. It specifies two mutually exclusive identifiers (sharePointUrl or fileId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like outlook_list_sharepoint_files and outlook_download_attachment.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to fetch a SharePoint file from an email link) and provides a condition (either sharePointUrl or fileId must be provided). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives among siblings.

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