Get Content

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: it writes to the local disk, but only inside allowed folders, and that hidden/secret files are refused. It does not restate the write nature so much as bound it, which is genuinely additive. Overwrite semantics and the temp-link lifetime are left to the schema/annotations.

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?

Three clauses and a routing sentence, with the core distinction (content vs. details) front-loaded and the mode breakdown following. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description supplies the write-location constraint, the mode map, and the sibling routing needed to call it correctly; nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the mode enum's resource restrictions and the save_path folder constraint. The description reinforces the mode-to-resource mapping but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a concrete verb (get content), the resource classes (OneDrive file, email attachment, contact), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling m365_get ('Get the content of an item rather than its details'). An agent can distinguish it from m365_get without opening either schema.

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?

Enumerates each mode and the resource it applies to ('mode=download', 'mode=download_url', 'mode=vcard'), and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('Use m365_get for item details'). Selection criteria are explicit rather than inferred.

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