list-folder-files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and openness. The description adds some behavioral context by explaining that it returns 'children' of a DriveItem and that only items with 'folder or package facet' can have children, which clarifies scope. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'top'/'skip' params), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. With annotations providing core safety info, the description adds moderate value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds clarifying scope. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly naming key parameters or usage context, and the second sentence is somewhat technical ('non-null folder or package facet'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds basic purpose and scope but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of DriveItems), error handling, or pagination behavior. For a list tool with many parameters, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 13 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'top' for limiting items, 'search' for filtering). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It mentions 'DriveItems' and 'children relationship,' which loosely relates to 'driveId' and 'driveItemId,' but doesn't explain parameter usage or interactions. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Return a collection of DriveItems in the children relationship of a DriveItem.' It specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('DriveItems'), and scope ('children relationship of a DriveItem'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list-drives' or 'list-excel-worksheets' by focusing on folder contents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools (e.g., 'list-mail-folder-messages') beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'DriveItems with a non-null folder or package facet can have one or more child DriveItems,' which implies usage for folders/packages, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing driveId and driveItemId) or contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'search-query' for broader searches). No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are provided.

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