onedrive_list_root

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the core behavior of listing items in the root folder and implies non-recursive scope by directing nested-folder cases to a sibling. It does not mention pagination or permissions, but the output schema covers return structure, and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is a natural second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema, this description is complete: it states what is listed, where, and which sibling to use for other cases. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip; the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description sensibly omits parameter details, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List items in the OneDrive root folder.' It clearly signals the scope is the root folder, which distinguishes it from sibling onedrive_list_folder that handles nested folders. An agent can immediately identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 names alternatives with conditions: 'use onedrive_list_folder for nested folders and onedrive_read_file to read a discovered file.' This tells the agent exactly when not to use this tool and which sibling to choose instead, leaving no inference required.

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