SharePoint MCP Server

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. It mentions file type preferences but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling for non-text files, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool accessing external resources without annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important usage context about file types. There's no wasted verbiage or repetition, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (accessing external document content) with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and file type guidance but lacks information about authentication requirements, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'folder_path' and 'file_name' parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Get the content') and resource ('a document from SharePoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_metadata' by focusing on content retrieval rather than metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'download_document', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 some usage guidance by specifying 'Works best with text-based files (txt, json, md, etc)', which helps the agent understand appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_document' or 'get_file_metadata', nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication status). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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