m365_files_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds the behavioral fact that it returns both files and folders, which is beyond the name. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or that the path is relative to OneDrive root.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action and resource up front, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise.

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 simplicity and the strong schema/annotation coverage, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not explain the default behavior when 'path' is omitted (e.g., lists root of OneDrive), nor does it describe the return structure (names, types, metadata). No output schema exists, so more context would be helpful.

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: 'top' is documented as 'Max results' and 'path' as 'Folder path (e.g. Documents/Work)'. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and identifies the resource ('files and folders in your OneDrive'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like files_read (reads content), files_info (gets metadata), and files_search (searches), which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for browsing directory contents, nor does it suggest using files_search for keyword search or files_info for single-item metadata. There is no explicit context or exclusions.

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