search-loop-components

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing a known limitation of delegated Graph for SharePoint Embedded containers, which the annotations do not convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important limitation is included as a brief note without redundancy.

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 search tool, the description covers purpose, file scope, storage locations, and a key behavioral limitation. It does not describe result shape, but with no output schema and strong annotations this is a minor gap rather than a major deficiency.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') and a specific resource ('Microsoft Loop components'), and adds concrete detail about file types (.loop/.fluid) and storage locations (SharePoint/OneDrive). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get-loop-component-content and other search tools.

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 useful context on when results may be incomplete, noting that Loop workspaces in SharePoint Embedded containers are not exposed via delegated Graph. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool is preferred over other search tools like search-my-drive or search-sites.

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