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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated operational gate, the account-bound computer:read OAuth requirement, which tells the agent a call can fail for auth reasons. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or what entries look like, so it is not a full behavioral picture.

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 sentences with zero filler. Scope is front-loaded before the sibling routing and the auth note, so the reader gets the identity of the tool first and the disambiguating detail immediately after.

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 single-parameter list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, this is close to sufficient: scope, alternatives, and auth prerequisite are all present, and no output schema exists to require return-value explanation. The only gap is that the default behavior when 'path' is omitted is not stated, which matters because the parameter is optional.

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 single optional 'path' parameter is documented as 'Explicit path inside the scope for this tool' with a symlink caveat. The description reinforces that the scope is the restricted workspace, which gives the agent the frame for interpreting path, but it adds no format or resolution detail (absolute vs relative, default when omitted) beyond the 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 plus a scope qualifier: 'List the restricted EXZA workspace only.' The word 'only' constrains which filesystem region it covers, which is exactly the axis on which its siblings differ, so an agent can distinguish 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool in two named cases: managed home folder -> exza_list_home_files, owner-authorized arbitrary path -> exza_list_commander_files. Both routes are named with their selecting condition, leaving essentially nothing to inference.

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