list_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the return shape ({items, next_link, has_more}), pagination behavior, continuation binding to folder and page size, and one-hour/server-restart expiry. It stops short of mentioning permissions, error behavior, or read-only safety, but it is unusually transparent for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then succinctly details parameters, return value, and pagination rules. Every sentence earns its place, and the paging instruction is clear without unnecessary 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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly, including return structure and continuation semantics. It could be slightly more complete with a note on permissions or error handling, but the essential operational context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path accepts a folder path, 'root'/'/', or a Graph item id; top is a page size between 1 and 200 with default 50; next_link is a continuation that requires keeping path and top unchanged. These details add substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 and resource: 'List the contents of a OneDrive folder.' This clearly identifies the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like search_onedrive or get_item_metadata.

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 by explaining pagination with next_link, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus search_onedrive or get_item_metadata. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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