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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: newest-first ordering and the fact that it returns names, types, folders, and IDs but "never file contents" – a key expectation-setting detail.

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 core purpose, then scope, return contents, and usage in compact sentences. The trailing "[category: files]" tag is low-value noise, but overall the text is efficient and well ordered.

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, so the description responsibly summarizes returned fields (names, types, folders, IDs) and explicitly rules out contents. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing is underspecified.

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 are already fully documented in the schema (including the folder exact-format and limit fallback). The description's "optional folder filter" adds no details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the user's own saved files (their file storage)", with ordering ("newest first") and an optional folder filter. It clearly separates itself from read/write tools by noting it returns metadata only, though it does not name the closest sibling (octopus_search) to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Provides intent guidance ("Use it to see what files the user has or to find which one they mean"), which implies the query-style use case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as octopus_search / octopus_search_meta, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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