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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping context that results come from two tabs, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result merging, or ordering. Adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter listing tool where extra routing context would earn its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It lacks disambiguation from sibling listers, pagination behavior, and whether results from the two tabs are combined or separate, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill.

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 four parameters (page, limit, query, tag_ids) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's note that 'query' searches only the References tab is not reconciled with the description's claim of covering both tabs.

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+resource ('List uploaded (reference) files') and scopes it to two concrete surfaces (the workspace files tab and the Shoot Board References tab). This is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like mcp_workflow_assets, mcp_intake_files, or search_uwear_library, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate on the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With many sibling listing/search tools (list_tags, mcp_workflow_assets, search_uwear_library), the description offers no signal on when this tool is the right choice over those.

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