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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (My Files default, assets excluded) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape for a list that clearly supports cursor/limit.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, with the core scoping fact and the My Files rule front-loaded. Every sentence earns 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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, default scope, and a sibling boundary. The one notable omission is any hint about pagination despite cursor/limit parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it meaningfully explains parentId (omit for My Files) and implicitly maps to the kind enum via "documents and folders." However, cursor and limit are left entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ("List private working documents and folders") plus the scoping container ("in a project"). It also distinguishes itself from the asset siblings by noting that assets are a separate media library, so an agent can route list_files vs find_assets without opening schemas.

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?

"Omit parentId for My Files" gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the root listing case, and the asset sentence sets a boundary against find_assets/upload_asset. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_file/read_file, so it is clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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