list_list_items_with_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns all column values expanded, which is a meaningful behavior, but it does not mention pagination, whether 'top' limits results, how filters behave, or what the response shape looks like. It is adequate for a read operation but leaves key behavioral details unstated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the distinguishing behavior, making it appropriately concise and well structured.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description is too minimal to be complete. It omits the meaning of the optional parameters, pagination behavior, and any guidance on return values. The agent would be left guessing about important calling details.

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 compensate by explaining any parameter. The words 'SharePoint list items' gives context for site_id and list_id, but top and filter are left entirely undefined in both schema and description. The description adds little to what the parameter names already communicate.

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'), names the resource ('SharePoint list items'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('all column values expanded') that separates it from the sibling tool list_list_items. This is clear, actionable, and not a restatement of the tool name.

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 phrase 'with all column values expanded' implies this tool is appropriate when a complete view of item columns is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over the similar sibling list_list_items, nor does it state exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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