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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are newest-first, capped at 200, include per-type counts, and carry a data-provenance note ('Names and addresses are typed by project members') plus a permission statement ('Any role on the project reads'). Pagination/truncation semantics are not fully detailed, but the added context is substantial.

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 core purpose ('Lists every file and link...') before diving into returned fields, filters, and access notes. The single dense sentence is information-rich but slightly run-on, packing many clauses together.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, enumerating returned fields (name, type, MIME type, size, task/list, link address) and the per-type counts. Combined with permission and ordering notes, an agent has nearly everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning on top: it enumerates the type values, clarifies that 'q' matches file name or task title text, and indicates boardId is the project. This maps the sparse schema descriptions to concrete filtering behavior.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('every file and link attached to a project's tasks') with scope and ordering, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_embeds, list_pages, and list_activity. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the 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?

It explains how to narrow results ('by type or by text in the file or task name') and notes that any project role can read, which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as list_embeds or search, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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