list-site-drives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but there is no contradiction; pagination behavior is captured in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, zero filler words. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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 listing tool with robust annotations and detailed pagination schema, the one-line description is adequate. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists; the parameter schema and annotations carry the remaining context, making the definition complete enough.

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%, so all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides; siteId's schema description is tautological ('Value for siteId'), but cursor and maxItems are well documented.

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?

States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'document libraries (drives)' scoped to 'a SharePoint site', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list-site-lists, get-drive, and list-drive-root-items. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there is no mention of exclusions or sibling tools. The purpose implies usage, but the description doesn't help an agent choose between list-site-drives and list-site-lists or get-drive.

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