List SharePoint Item Permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool lists sharing and permission entries, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific admin or owner permissions, whether the returned entries are scoped to a particular permission type, or any rate limiting or pagination behavior. For an API that surfaces sensitive access-control data, this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded with the core English statement, followed by Chinese translations for common intents. It is concise (two sentences) and every part adds context, though the Chinese phrases could be seen as redundant for an English-speaking agent but are valuable for multilingual intent coverage.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is relatively brief but does state the core behavior. However, for a security-sensitive tool that lists permissions, it would benefit from explaining what information appears in the results (e.g., user/group identities, roles, links), potential exceptions, and whether it covers both direct and inherited permissions. The sibling named drive_list_permissions is likely similar, so additional differentiation would improve completeness.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters ('File or folder item ID' and 'Document-library drive ID'), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds meaning by confirming the operation is for a SharePoint file or folder and that it lists sharing/permissions, which helps contextualize how itemId and driveId are used without needing to repeat the schema.

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 identifies the verb ('list') and resource ('sharing and permission entries for a SharePoint file or folder'), which distinguishes it from other SharePoint listing tools that focus on items, drives, or versions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the phrase 'sharing and permission entries' makes the purpose clear.

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 a basic sense of when to use the tool (to view permissions or access on SharePoint files/folders) via both English and Chinese intents. However, it does not include explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related tools like drive_list_permissions or sharepoint_invite_drive_item, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as required permissions.

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