get-drive-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that file metadata includes the @microsoft.graph.downloadUrl, while folder metadata does not. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get file/folder metadata') and immediately provides the most useful output-related nuance (downloadUrl for files).

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 get-by-ID tool with strong read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what metadata fields are included or how this tool relates to drive-specific siblings, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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%, with driveId and itemId both documented, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get file/folder metadata.' It also adds a distinguishing detail by mentioning the @microsoft.graph.downloadUrl for files. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get-my-drive-item or download-drive-item, so differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as download-drive-item, get-my-drive-item, or list-drive-* tools. The word 'metadata' implies it is for metadata rather than content, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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