Lists files and subdirectories in OneDrive or SharePoint shared folders with names, byte sizes, and modified times; filter by filename keyword or browse a subpath via saved share name or HTTPS link.
OneDrive/SharePoint 分享文件夹清单（教师共享的讲义等）：文件名 / 字节大小 / 修改时间 / 是否子目录。只读，不下载。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | 子目录（相对分享根），可省略。 | |
| match | No | 按文件名关键词筛选（子串，不区分大小写）。 | |
| share | Yes | 已保存的分享名字，或直接给 https 分享链接。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two most important traits — read-only and no download — plus the exact fields returned, which is real value. It is silent on behavior that matters for a share tool: whether listing recurses into subdirectories, what happens with an invalid or unsaved share name, and any permission/auth constraints.
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?
A single dense sentence with a colon-delimited return-field list plus a short behavioral note '只读，不下载' — front-loaded and free of filler. The very compact Chinese phrasing is efficient, though the field list is slightly cryptic without separators between items.
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?
With only three parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating return fields and asserting read-only. It still leaves gaps an agent would want before calling: recursion depth, error behavior for an unresolvable share, and any hint about how a saved share name maps to a link.
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 all three parameters (path, match, share) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no extra semantics such as share-name lookup behavior or how path is resolved relative to the share root beyond what the schema states.
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 states a concrete verb+resource: listing files inside a OneDrive/SharePoint shared folder, with the common case (teacher-shared lecture notes) named explicitly. It also enumerates the returned fields (file name / byte size / modified time / is-subdirectory), which pins down the scope. It stops short of contrasting itself with near-siblings such as canvas_files, so not a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical '教师共享的讲义等' tells the agent this is for browsing material someone shared via a OneDrive/SharePoint link, and '不下载' signals the tool will not fetch content. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative (e.g. canvas_files for Canvas-hosted course files), leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.