m365_files_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as error handling or what metadata is included. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler words. It's highly concise and immediately readable.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient. The read-only and idempotent annotations cover the behavioral contract, and the description clearly identifies the target resource. It doesn't detail the metadata fields returned, but that's acceptable for a simple metadata getter.

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 schema has one parameter (itemId) with only a minimal description. The main description clarifies that the ID can refer to either a file or a folder, adding meaning that was not explicit in the schema.

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 function: retrieving metadata for a file or folder. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file or folder metadata'), which distinguishes it from file content read (m365_files_read) and file listing (m365_files_list).

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 implies usage when metadata is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like m365_files_read and m365_files_list are not referenced, so the guidance is only implied.

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