Files in a collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns filenames, sizes, and types (not contents), and it clarifies the folderId semantics including the special 'root' value. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a read-only listing tool this is a strong disclosure.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the questions frame the purpose, the return fields are stated, the folderId semantics are given, and the content boundary is explicit. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what it returns, how to scope it, and what it won't do. Minor gaps are pagination/ordering and whether folderId is required for subfolder listings, but the core calling contract is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'id' identifies the collection, and it explains the special meaning of folderId ('root' for top level, a folder id for subfolders, omitted for all files). It doesn't give exact formats for ids, but the semantic guidance is substantial and directly actionable.

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 opens with concrete questions it answers ('what files are in this collection? what is in this folder? are the raws uploaded yet?'), then names the resource (files in a collection/folder) and explicitly distinguishes itself from file-content retrieval ('Filenames only — never file contents'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_folders and get_transfer_downloads.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: omit folderId for every file, pass 'root' for the top level only, or pass a folder id. It also tells the agent when to use this tool (to check if raws are uploaded) and what it will not do (never return file contents), which helps route away from content-returning tools.

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