list_group_locker_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the non-recursive scanning behavior, the need for verified parent folders, and the return payload (paths, sizes, pagination). This is valuable disclosure not present in annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the main action and then providing key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 undocumented in schema) and no output schema, the description provides some critical context (non-recursive scanning, return data) but omits parameter-specific guidance (e.g., pagination semantics, folderPath format). It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to call it confidently without additional inference.

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 only 40% (only courseId and groupId have descriptions). The description mentions 'pagination' and nested folder behavior, which partially informs startAt, maxItems, and folderPath, but it does not explain these parameters' formats or default behaviors. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'files or folders in your verified own-group locker', with specifics on return data (paths, sizes, pagination). It is distinct from sibling read tools like read_group_locker, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'your verified own-group locker' and the non-recursive scanning rule, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when this should be chosen over read_group_locker or read_group_locker_file. The recursion caveat is helpful but no direct alternatives are named.

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