get_private_files_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with them. It adds extra context by stating that it neither creates drafts nor downloads anything, giving more specific behavioral boundaries beyond the generic read-only guarantee.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists exclusions. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essence: what it queries (quotas and counts) and what it avoids. While it does not specify output format, the phrase 'cuotas y recuentos' implies numeric results, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100% vacuous). With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter details because none exist. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('cuotas y recuentos de archivos privados'), and explicitly states what it does not do ('no crea borradores ni descarga nada'). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tool that might involve file creation or downloading.

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 implies the tool is for read-only inspection of private file metadata, and the exclusion of draft creation and downloads hints at when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit conditions for choosing this one over others, so guidance is limited to inference.

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