get_folder_tree

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 the tool is 'recursive' and for 'understanding folder structure,' but fails to cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication (implied by sibling tools but not stated), potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned tree. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds usage context. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 complexity of interacting with SharePoint (implied by sibling tools like 'authenticate'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error cases, or the structure of the returned tree view, which are essential for effective tool use in this context.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('parent_folder' and 'max_depth') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get a recursive tree view of folders in SharePoint' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('folders in SharePoint'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_folders' by specifying it's a recursive tree view. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_folders' beyond implying depth, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for understanding folder structure,' suggesting when this tool might be preferred over simpler listing tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_folders' or prerequisites such as authentication, leaving room for improvement.

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