sharepoint_list_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'synthetic' and 'allowlisted' which inform the agent that data is not real and access is restricted to a specific folder. These are useful behavioral clues beyond the annotations, but the description does not elaborate on return format or pagination. Given the annotations, a 3 is reasonable.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word contributes value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a single parameter and no output schema.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the safety (via annotations). However, it does not describe what the returned metadata looks like (e.g., a list of files, nested structure, or specific fields), which could be important for downstream usage. The word 'synthetic' implies placeholder data but doesn't confirm the structure. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 0%, and the description does not directly explain the 'target' parameter. However, the phrase 'for an allowlisted logical folder' hints that 'target' selects the folder, and the schema's single enum value (demo-folder) reduces ambiguity. Still, the description fails to explicitly map the parameter to its meaning, leaving the agent to infer from the enum name and the tool name. This is a minimal contribution beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('synthetic SharePoint metadata for an allowlisted logical folder'). It distinguishes itself from sibling sharepoint_read_document by focusing on listing metadata rather than reading a document, and the 'synthetic' qualifier clarifies the nature of the data. The purpose is 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context (e.g., 'when you need to see available folders') or exclusions (e.g., 'for real data use X'). The usage is only implied by the name and description, but a clear differentiation would help an agent decide between this and other listing tools like teams_channel_digest or calendar_agenda.

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