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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact sha256 derivation (SHA-256 of the data string, matching local `shasum -a 256`), which tells the agent how to interpret results and how to compare against local files. It does not describe pagination or return format limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds the sha256 semantics, the usage workflow, and the input/output shape in clearly separated lines. Every line carries distinct information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 no output schema present, the description supplies the return structure ('codes: [{code_id, isRoot, lang, fmt, size, sha256}]'), which is essential for the agent. Combined with the hashing semantics and the upload workflow, the agent has everything needed to call and use the result correctly.

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% and the single project_id parameter is already documented in the schema (including the 'd'-prefixed internal ID note). The description only restates 'input: project_id', adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

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 specific verb and resource ('returns metadata list of the codes array of an existing project') and explicitly scopes out what it does NOT return ('file content data is not included'). This distinguishes it cleanly from get_content, which fetches file content, without the agent needing to open 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use case (differential upload decision) and names the downstream alternative path: files whose sha256 mismatches or is absent should be sent via request_upload_url / batch_request_upload_url → commit_uploaded_codes. Both the condition and the alternative tools are stated, not inferred.

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