whodb_platform_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context in 'per-call targeting without changing defaults' and in hinting at the payload shape ('files', 'folders', 'storageUsed'), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or what a listing returns for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and root-folder default before filters and fields. Nothing is redundant, though the 'fields such as ... needed now' sentence is slightly clunky.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested workspace object and no output schema, the description covers targeting, filtering, and field selection adequately. It is thin on return shape, pagination, and sibling differentiation (e.g., versus file_search or tabular_files), which leaves an agent with unanswered questions before calling.

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 a baseline of 3 is warranted, but the description goes beyond the schema by naming concrete field values ('files', 'folders', 'storageUsed') that the generic 'fields' parameter description does not provide, and by explaining the per-call workspace override intent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List folders and files in a hosted project folder,' which is concrete and scope-aware (hosted project). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like whodb_platform_file_search, whodb_platform_file_inspect, whodb_platform_app_files, or whodb_platform_tabular_files, so an agent cannot easily tell which listing tool to pick.

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?

It offers practical calling guidance (omit folder_id for the root, apply name/kind/mime_type filters 'when known', prefer narrow fields), which is implied usage for the parameters. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the other file-listing/search siblings, so tool-selection guidance is absent.

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