List files shared with me

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description adds real value by disclosing the default 25-item limit, the count/nextLink return shape, that entries are stubs pointing into the owner's drive, and the required Files.Read.All scope with non-admin consent. Doesn't mention pagination mechanics beyond nextLink or error behavior, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers return shape, default, usage routing, and auth scope in a compact multi-sentence block. Dense but each sentence contributes; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, default/limit behavior, return shape hint (count and nextLink), how to consume the stubs, and required auth scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter 'top' is fully documented, including the caveat that sharedWithMe applies the limit loosely. The description repeats the default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lists files and folders other people have shared with the signed-in user') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that most files_* tools address only the user's own OneDrive. An agent can tell this apart from files_list_children or files_search without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames when to use this tool: to find items shared by others, and points to files_get_drive_item and files_parse_document as consumers of the returned remote ids. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative context is strong.

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