list_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the read-only action 'List column schema'. It does not disclose the shape of the returned schema, pagination behavior, whether hidden or system columns are included, or any site/list qualification requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; every word ('List', 'column schema', 'SharePoint list') adds meaning. There is no redundancy and the core action is stated first.

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 tool with two required string parameters, the description names the action and the return ('column schema') adequately. However, with no output schema it should give more detail on what the schema includes, and the lack of any guidance on the site_id/list_id relationship leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it offers nothing about site_id or list_id beyond the schema's bare titles 'Site Id' and 'List Id'. An agent is left to infer that list_id refers to a SharePoint list and that site_id identifies its containing site, with no format or relationship guidance.

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 precise resource (column schema of a SharePoint list), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_list_items (items), list_content_types (content types), and get_list (the list itself). It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 guidance is offered about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'use get_list for list metadata' or 'use list_content_types for content type schemas'. The description simply states the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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