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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the content of the response (owner, direct shares with shareId, inherited shares, myRole), which is useful context, but it says nothing about required permissions, pagination, ordering, or which folder the inherited entries originate from.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Quién tiene acceso a una carpeta') and then enumerates the returned elements efficiently. No filler, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly dense to parse.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape — which it does by naming owner, shareId-bearing direct shares, inherited shares, and myRole. The remaining gap is that it does not suggest what to do with the shareId (e.g., pairing with folder_unshare) or how to grant access when none exists.

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 the schema already documents section (enum) and folderId. The description's parenthetical listing of notes, issues, bitácoras and tareas recurrentes mirrors the enum rather than adding new meaning about how section affects the lookup. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names the specific resource and scope: who has access to a folder, broken into owner, direct shares (with shareId), inherited shares from parent folders, and myRole. It is distinguishable from folder_share/folder_unshare by its reporting nature, though it never explicitly uses a verb like 'list' or 'get' and relies on the reader to infer the read operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools folder_share and folder_unshare that would be the alternatives for granting or revoking access. The read-only nature is implied by the content being reported, but nothing tells the agent under what circumstances to prefer this tool over folder listing tools.

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