Get OneDrive item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of error behavior, rate limits, or precedence when both parameters are supplied). It does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal extra value.

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 that front-loads the purpose and the key parameter choices. It contains zero filler and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what it does and how to specify the item. Minor gaps include not specifying what happens if both path and item_id are provided (precedence) and not describing the metadata format, but these are not critical for a basic fetch operation. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description restates that the tool works 'by path or item_id', which confirms they are alternatives—this is a small addition since the item_id schema already says 'Alternative to path', but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch metadata') and resource ('single OneDrive file or folder'), and clarifies the two ways to specify it (path or item_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_drive_file (which downloads) and list_drive_items (which lists multiple items), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 usage for retrieving a single item's metadata, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of preferring this over list_drive_items or search_drive_files in specific scenarios, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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