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

Annotations already declare readOnly/safe/non-open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses permission scoping ('Only shows items the user can see and kinds this token may read'). It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the two modes before the rationale, and every sentence carries information (mode behavior, engagement-axis rationale, alternative routing, permission scoping). It is on the longer side, but the length is justified by genuinely distinct facts.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields per mode (id, path, count / kind, id, title, tags, path). Combined with permission scoping and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so both parameters (folder, workspace) are already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the id-or-name behavior and workspace semantics but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 the specific verb (browse) and resource (workspace folders), then precisely delineates the two behaviors: no folder → full tree with id, path, and count; with folder → subfolders plus items with kind, id, title, tags, path. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like search_workspace purely from this text.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'reach for this rather than search_workspace whenever the user names a folder or asks what's in one,' and explains the reasoning (a folder's name is not written on its contents). Also clarifies the two invocation modes and when each applies.

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