outlook_resolve_sharepoint_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions that the tool operates without downloading, leaving out important details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid links, or whether it modifies any data. The description is minimal in terms of behavioral context.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what metadata is returned. It only says 'get file metadata' without specifying fields like name, size, or type. Additionally, there is no guidance on error cases or how the tool behaves with invalid links. The context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 both parameters already described clearly in the input schema (sharePointUrl as 'SharePoint sharing URL to resolve' and includePermissions with default and description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 tool resolves SharePoint sharing links to get file metadata without downloading, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `outlook_download_attachment` by emphasizing 'without downloading'.

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 implies use when you have a SharePoint sharing link and need metadata without downloading, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `outlook_get_sharepoint_file` or `outlook_list_sharepoint_files`. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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