List files and folders

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioural context beyond them: it is metadata-only and never downloads or previews content, which prevents an agent from assuming it can retrieve file bodies. No pagination or result-limit behaviour is disclosed.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scoping rule front-loaded and the never-downloads caveat closing it. The colon-separated field list in the middle is dense but earns its place by summarising the return payload.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the fields surfaced. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, the main remaining gap is pagination/ordering, which is not addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents workspace_id, folder_id and include_contact_details fully. The description reinforces the folder_id root-vs-folder semantics, which is the one parameter behaviour worth restating, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (files and folders), the exact scope (a workspace's root, or one folder when folder_id is supplied), and the fields returned (titles, versions, sizes, last updater, labels). An agent can distinguish this from list_workspaces or list_tasks without inspecting the schema.

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 states the branch condition for folder_id ('or in one folder with folder_id') and implicitly excludes fetching content via 'this server never downloads or previews a file.' No sibling alternatives are named, but the scope is clear enough to know when to reach for it.

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