sharepoint_list_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it is silent on authentication requirements, pagination, result size caps, ordering, and whether folder contents are recursive. Most importantly it never reveals how the two modes are selected given the tool takes no arguments.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler; nothing is wasted and the two-mode scope is stated compactly.

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 no parameters, the description must carry nearly everything, yet it leaves the return shape, site/library targeting, and mode selection unexplained. An agent cannot tell what it will get back or how to scope the call.

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?

Zero parameters would normally give a baseline of 4, but the description promises two distinct behaviors (libraries vs. files) while the schema exposes no way to express that choice, so the implied parameter semantics actively mismatch the structured data.

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?

States a concrete verb (lists) and the two resources it can return (a site's document libraries, or files/folders inside one), which is enough to distinguish it from sharepoint_read_file. It never explains what distinguishes it from sharepoint_list_sites, and 'a SharePoint site's' leaves the site selection mechanism entirely implicit.

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 sentence implies two usage modes — enumerate libraries versus enumerate contents of one — but gives no conditions for picking between them, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sharepoint_list_sites or sharepoint_read_file.

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