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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive flags. The description adds return-field detail and workspace-scoped listing, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not discuss pagination side effects or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, return fields second, alternative third. No waste, front-loaded.

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 listing return fields is valuable. With schema documenting all parameters and annotations covering safety, the description gives an agent enough to call correctly; pagination details are covered by the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and workspace_id. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb 'Lista' plus resource 'todos los archivos subidos al workspace' and explicit return fields. It distinguishes itself from get_storage_usage by naming that sibling for storage totals. Workspace-wide wording separates it from document-specific file listing siblings.

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 one explicit alternative: use get_storage_usage for total storage. It does not state when to prefer this over get_document_files or other file-listing siblings, so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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