Browse SharePoint Drives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating, repeatable operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not go beyond them, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff.

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?

While the tool is simple and has complete parameter documentation plus annotations, the description does not explain the return value format or how this tool fits into the broader SharePoint browsing workflow. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to guess what a 'drive' result looks like. This is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness for a straightforward list operation.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (site_url and credential_id), covering 100% of the parameters. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('drives within a SharePoint site'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. The scope ('within a SharePoint site') helps differentiate it from sibling tools like browse_sites and browse_children, which target different levels of the SharePoint hierarchy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after browsing sites and before browsing children, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. With similar sibling tools (browse_sites, browse_children), this lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer the correct context.

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