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 then adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: empty folders are included, items are attributed to a team, and only names are returned. It does not mention any size/depth limits or truncation on large trees, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 tightly packed sentences with the output shape first and the intended use second; every clause carries information (indentation, empty folders, team ownership, names-only, scope). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

The tool has no required parameters, one well-documented optional parameter, and no output schema, so the description carries the return-format burden itself and does so by describing the tree structure and what is omitted. For a simple read-only inspection tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the schema already enumerates 'personal, all, or team:<id>' with the default; the description's 'scope narrows it to personal files or to one team' largely restates that. It adds no format examples or edge-case behavior for an invalid team id, 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 ('Show how this account's memory is organised') and commits to a concrete output shape: an indented tree of folders, files and owning team. The phrase 'it returns names only, no file contents' immediately separates it from read-style siblings such as memory_read, so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('seeing the layout before choosing where a new file goes') and an implicit exclusion ('no file contents'), which routes content-reading needs elsewhere. It stops short of naming an alternative for flat listing or searching, so the guidance is clear on context but not exhaustive on alternatives.

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