onedrive_file_info

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. It does signal a read-only metadata retrieval and hints at the fields returned, but it says nothing about behavior for missing paths, permission requirements, how the target file is resolved (the schema takes no arguments), or any limits — a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 is the right shape, but it is truncated ('and ex...'), so the structure is incomplete rather than genuinely concise. It is short and non-redundant, but the missing tail is lost information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description is the only source of behavior and return detail — and it stops mid-word after naming only three of the metadata fields. An agent lacks the information needed to know what it receives back or how the target is chosen.

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 declares zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. But with no arguments at all, the description's failure to explain how the target file/folder is identified (ambient scope? implicit selection?) leaves a real ambiguity that the schema cannot resolve, pulling the score down to 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('returns metadata for a file or folder in your OneDrive synced folder') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from read/write siblings like onedrive_read_file. However, it never differentiates itself from the very close sibling onedrive_list_files or gdrive_file_info, and the sentence is cut off mid-word ('and ex...'), leaving the field list unfinished.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this tool versus onedrive_read_file, onedrive_search_files, onedrive_root, or onedrive_list_files. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as an active scope set via onedrive_set_scope or a connected account, which matters given the empty parameter schema.

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