onedrive_search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Search files' does not specify whether it searches filenames, content, or metadata, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It is front-loaded and has no fluff. However, it is underspecified; conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information. A bit more detail would improve it without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It provides no information on how to perform a search (e.g., query input), what the output looks like, or any behavioral expectations. This is insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 has zero parameters, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the empty schema. However, the lack of a search query parameter is suspicious; the description should clarify how the search query is provided (e.g., via context or internal state). According to rules, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, but the description fails to address the missing query, so I deduct 1 for lack of clarity.

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 'Search files in OneDrive' clearly indicates the action (search) and the resource (files in OneDrive). It distinguishes from sibling tools like onedrive_list_files (listing all files) and onedrive_file_info (info on a specific file). However, it lacks detail on what 'search' entails (e.g., filename, full-text), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as onedrive_list_files or onedrive_file_info. There is no mention of prerequisites like setting a scope via onedrive_set_scope. The agent lacks context for choosing the appropriate tool.

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