List SharePoint File Versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the meaningful qualifier 'retained versions' (not all versions), which is a useful behavioral distinction. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, permissions, or ordering, though these are likely inherent to a simple list 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 concise, containing a clear one-sentence summary plus a Chinese intent alias section. The Chinese text is arguably useful for multilingual intent matching but is not essential. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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's simplicity (2 fully described parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a minimally viable context. It explains what versions are listed but lacks detail on return structure or usage scenarios, which would be helpful for agents encountering similar sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both driveId and itemId described adequately in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (list) and resource (retained versions of a SharePoint document-library file). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_list_versions by explicitly mentioning SharePoint document-library, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_list_versions or sharepoint_restore_drive_version. The SharePoint qualifier implicitly suggests context, but there is no comparative direction for selection.

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