Get My OneDrive

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a non-destructive, read-only operation. It also discloses the types of data returned (metadata, owner, type, quota). It does not mention potential edge cases like missing OneDrive or auth failures, but for a simple no-parameter read, the transparency is adequate and above average.

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 short sentences: the primary English description and a Chinese intent list. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 is a simple, zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the main purpose and the key data returned (metadata, owner, type, quota). There are no hidden parameters or side effects to describe, and the explanation is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the return values instead.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read signed-in user OneDrive metadata, owner, type, and quota.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource (signed-in user's OneDrive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_list_root (lists files) or drive_get_item (gets a specific item), so purpose clarity is high.

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 provides clear context for when to use: to retrieve the signed-in user's OneDrive metadata, including quota. The Chinese intents ('查看我的OneDrive信息, 查看网盘容量, 查看OneDrive配额') reinforce these use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use drive_list_root for files). Thus it has clear context without explicit comparisons, aligning with a 4.

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