Get a OneDrive file’s details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds value by specifying the exact metadata returned (webViewLink, webContentLink, etc.), which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction exists; the description complements the annotations with concrete output details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose, lists the returned fields, and includes the input requirement. There is no wasted language; every clause 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 simple read-only fetch with one parameter, the description adequately covers input (fileId from list_onedrive_files) and output (specific metadata fields). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but given the readOnlyHint annotation and the absence of an output schema, these are not critical gaps. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% – the only parameter fileId is described as 'the OneDrive item id (from list_onedrive_files)' in the schema. The description repeats this source, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states it fetches metadata for a single OneDrive item, listing specific fields (name, type, size, modified time, webViewLink, webContentLink) and says to pass fileId. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_onedrive_file, delete_onedrive_file, and convert_onedrive_file, as it is a read/fetch operation.

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 tells the agent to pass fileId from list_onedrive_files, providing a clear prerequisite and flow. It explicitly mentions 'Read-only', aligning with its intended use for inspection. It does not name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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