Show Watched Folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: blocked_reason values (network_storage = never watched), what `editable` gates, and the cost of remediation ('one restart'). No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the field semantics and remediation paths. Some return-field exposition borders on duplicating the output schema, but each line carries actionable meaning, so waste is minimal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies their semantics; the remediation paths make it actionable. The remaining gap is the undocumented `workspace` parameter and any permission/visibility caveats, which leaves it just short of fully complete.

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% and the description never explains the two input parameters — `pod` (required) and especially the optional `workspace` selector are left entirely to inference. The field-level detail it does give (`origin`, `revision`, `editable`) describes return values, which an output schema already covers, rather than the inputs.

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 ('Show a pod's watched folders') and immediately defines the concept ('folders whose new files are uploaded as Asset Hub assets'). This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling set_watched_folders and from generic pod tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: `revision` is what set_watched_folders needs as `expected_version`, `editable` false means it can't be changed now, and no_sidecar leads to update_pod with enable_folder_saving=true or a storage fix first. When-to-use-next and when-not-to-act conditions are both spelled out.

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