ipa_files

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden: it conveys that this is a non-mutating listing, discloses the returned attributes (including OneDrive download state, which is non-obvious), and warns that raw acquisitions are large so listing should precede reading. It omits auth/permission needs and pagination behavior, which are the remaining gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action and the folder forms, with the operational caution appended. No filler; every clause adds either path syntax or usage guidance.

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 need no further explanation, and the description covers path syntax and the read-cost tradeoff for a 2-parameter tool. The only real hole is the undocumented `max_files` cap, which matters for folders with many raw files.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for `folder` by giving three literal path shapes ('data/equipment/<id>', 'data/psf/<session>/raw', 'data/laser-power'). However `max_files` (default 200) is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 the files of a library folder") and backs it with three concrete folder-path examples plus the exact fields returned (size, URL, OneDrive download status). An agent can immediately tell this is a folder-listing operation, distinct from search/find-style siblings like ipa_search or ipa_find.

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?

"Raw acquisitions are large: list before reading, and read only what is needed" gives explicit sequencing and cost guidance for using this before a read tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. ipa_item / ipa_page) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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