List OneDrive files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description's 'Read-only' restates it. The one real addition is the pagination workflow ('pageToken, the cursor from a previous call'), which is useful but modest given the bar is lower with annotations present.

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 short clauses, each carrying distinct information, with the resource and default mode front-loaded and pagination last. The dash-separated structure is terse but every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, folders-only filtering, and pagination, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits any hint of the returned item shape or ordering, which an output-schema-free tool could reasonably clarify, so it is strong but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating the default behavior ('the root by default') and how folderId versus query select different modes, which the schema lists only in isolation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List files & folders in the user's OneDrive') and explicitly enumerates its three modes (root default, folderId contents, query name search). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_drive_files (Google Drive) and get_onedrive_file without needing the schemas.

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?

It clearly states which invocation to use in which case: root by default, folderId for a folder's contents, query for name search, and onlyFolders for folders-only. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_onedrive_file) or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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