List everything wrong in the folder

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it 'waits while health is being checked', ready=false means Folio is still reading and you should ask again shortly, it 'reveals nothing of the reader's reading', and truncated answers add 'omitted' and 'narrow'. It also discloses the full response shape in the absence of an 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every segment carries information — problem taxonomy, alternatives, readiness semantics, truncation handling. It loses a point for density: the long comma-chained enumerations ('declarations, fields, rules and saved views a document breaks') and compressed inline type notation make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: field-by-field semantics for ready, problems (kind, path, line, block, severity, what, anchor, opens, occurrence) and version, plus the ready=false retry case and truncation fields. For a single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the schema already explains that path may be a document relative to the served folder, an absolute path under it, or a folder, with omission meaning the whole folder. The description's phrasing ('path only in that document or under that folder') largely restates that scoping rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every problem in the served folder') plus explicit scope narrowing ('or with path only in that document or under that folder'), and enumerates the problem classes it reports. An agent can distinguish it from folio_provenance and folio_needs directly from the text, since both alternatives are named and scoped.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations: 'after editing documents, given the path of what you edited', 'to answer which figures disagree with their data', 'to find what to fix'. It also routes explicitly to alternatives — folio_provenance for one block's figures in detail, folio_needs for what needs the reader, ranked — which is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the top band requires.

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