get-my-drive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what data is returned (drive id, quota, owner), which is useful, but does not disclose failure modes, prerequisites, or response structure. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and key output fields without any filler. 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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It lists the key returned fields since there is no output schema. A minor gap is not explaining the exact response shape or edge case (e.g., user without OneDrive), but the core information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description appropriately focuses on return values rather than parameters, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('the signed-in user's OneDrive'), and the key returned data ('drive id, quota, owner'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get-drive' and 'list-site-drives' by scoping it to the current user's default drive.

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 phrase 'signed-in user's OneDrive' implies when to use this tool—when you need the current user's default drive—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get-drive' for a specific drive ID. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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