Get SharePoint Site By Path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action and intended outcome ('resolve site', 'get Site ID'). It does not specify return format, error conditions, or whether any side effects occur, leaving the agent guessing about the operation's safety.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Chinese repetition is somewhat redundant for a general agent but serves a multilingual audience, and the overall length is appropriate.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the basic action and required inputs, and it hints at the output ('Site ID'). However, with no output schema, it lacks details on response structure, error scenarios, or permission requirements, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 description mentions 'hostname' and 'server-relative path' but adds minimal detail beyond the schema. The relativePath parameter already has a schema description, while hostname lacks one and the description does not compensate with examples or format hints. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides little added value.

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 resolves a SharePoint site using hostname and server-relative path, with a specific verb ('resolve') and resource. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like sharepoint_get_site (likely by ID) by focusing on path-based lookup.

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 implies usage when a hostname and relative path are available, reinforced by the Chinese intent of parsing a SharePoint link. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use sharepoint_search_sites instead.

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