List the documents a file feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: the response shape ({ready, documents:[{source, how}]}), the not-ready edge case while Folio indexes the folder, and truncation behavior (omitted, narrow). It stops short of stating ordering, limits, or how 'how' values are chosen, so it is strong-but-not-exhaustive for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then exclusion, then return shape and truncation — a sensible ordering with no filler. The final sentence is dense and the phrasing 'narrow, how to ask for less' is terse enough to slow comprehension, costing one point.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so precisely, including the ready=false state and the truncation fields. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations, everything needed to call and interpret it is present.

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?

The single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including relative-vs-absolute and example 'data/daily.csv'. The description only restates the accepted file kinds ('document, data file or query file'), which the schema already covers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('the documents that include a file or whose embeds and queries read it'), plus a memorable framing ('the pages a change to it moves'). This clearly separates it from folio_links/folio_related style tools that surface links rather than dependents.

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 an explicit timing rule ('Use it before editing, moving or deleting a document, data file or query file') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('it does not list links, so for what links to a document query folio.links with folio_query'). The agent knows both when to call this and where to route instead.

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