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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the tool's focus on auto-attach decisions, lists the categories of files reported, and notes that renamed files can be picked up on the next scan. This reveals behavior about what the tool surfaces and how results relate to future scans.

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?

The description is a single, somewhat lengthy sentence but front-loads the key idea ('What the connected folder has produced') and provides necessary detail without excessive filler. It could be better structured, but it is effective and not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return value expectations. It does so by naming the categories of results (files seen, matched/attached, non-auto-attached with reasons) and hints at the actionable purpose (renaming files for next scan). While it doesn't specify the exact response format, it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will provide.

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% with both parameters (token and tenant_slug) having descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context, but per the baseline rule, high schema coverage means a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reports on the connected folder's production: files seen, matched/attached, and files that could not be auto-attached due to filenames not identifying an episode. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like publisher_stats or publisher_episodes, which likely cover different metrics.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking folder status and finding files needing rename, but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention alternative tools.

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