onedrive_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has no side effects. The description is minimal and reveals no behavioral details beyond the obvious metadata retrieval.

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, directly lists what the tool returns. No unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured to include the source of the target without significantly increasing length.

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?

Tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry complete context. It omits how the file/folder is identified, potential errors, and return structure. Agents may struggle to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters. The description does not account for this – it should explain how the tool knows which file/folder to query (e.g., uses current context). Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the lack of explanation about the invocation context lowers the score.

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?

Description clearly states 'Returns metadata' for a 'file or folder' and lists returned fields (size, modification date, type, extension). This distinguishes from read or list siblings, but it omits how the target file/folder is identified given zero parameters.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdrive_file_info or read tools. No context on prerequisites or expected preceding actions.

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