Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It does not explain what search criteria are used (filename, content, metadata), how results are ranked, authentication requirements, or the critical anomaly of having zero input parameters for a search operation.

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 appropriately sized at four words and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to earn its place by adding substantive value beyond the tool name.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and query parameters (highly unusual for a search tool), the description should compensate by explaining the search mechanism, return format, or default behavior. It provides none of this, leaving critical gaps in understanding.

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 contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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' is tautological, restating the tool name with minimal conversion to natural language. While it identifies the resource (OneDrive files) and action (search), it fails to distinguish from sibling tool onedrive_list_files or clarify the search scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus onedrive_list_files or other OneDrive operations. The description does not address the lack of query parameters or explain how the search functionality operates without input criteria.

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