List files shared with me

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: returned entries are stubs into the owner's drive, results include count and nextLink, default item count is 25, and Files.Read.All scope is required. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and relevant. The core action is stated first, followed by operational caveats, sibling differentiation, and scope requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 list operation with clear annotations candidate output schema, this is complete. It explains what is returned (count, nextLink, shared stubs), how to reference items, the limitation of sibling tools, and the permission requirement. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents top's meaning, default, bounds, and loose behavior. The tool description reinforces the 25-item default but adds no genuinely new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('files and folders other people have shared with the signed-in user'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling files_* tools by noting those only address the user's own OneDrive. An agent can clearly tell this apart from files_list_recent or files_list_children.

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 explicitly explains when this tool is appropriate (shared-with-me items) and provides a concrete exclusion: other files_* tools cannot read these items by id. It also gives the correct handling path via remoteDriveId/remoteItemId or webUrl, plus the required scope. This is strong routing guidance.

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