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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context ('private working documents', 'separate media library'), but says nothing about pagination despite limit/cursor parameters existing, nor about ordering or result shape. With annotations doing the safety work, this is an adequate middle score.

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 with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (project scoping, then My Files behavior) is front-loaded. Every clause 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 list tool with five parameters, no output schema and no documented pagination contract, the description should at minimum explain how limit/cursor work together and what projectId is required for. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot page correctly or interpret results from the definition alone.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it explains only parentId (and only its omission case), leaving projectId, kind, limit and cursor entirely undocumented. The enum for kind and the 100-item limit on limit are discoverable only by reading the raw schema.

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') and scopes it to a project. It also pre-emptively separates itself from the asset/media tools ('Assets are a separate media library'), so an agent can distinguish it from find_assets and upload_asset, though the distinction from siblings like get_file or read_file is left implicit.

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 provides one concrete routing rule ('Omit parentId for My Files') and implies that media assets belong elsewhere, which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it never names the alternative tool (find_assets) nor says when not to use this tool, so the agent has to infer the rest.

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