Folio provides 7 tools with basic descriptions and input schemas, but falls short of production quality. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (list_roots, read_file, edit_file, search, answer, summarize), which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars for most tools), parameter descriptions are sparse or missing, and output schemas are not documented. The 'answer' and 'summarize' tools lack clarity on what they return and when to use them vs. similar tools. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are present. Error handling is not visible in the provided code. The edit_file tool is marked WRITE but has no confirmation/dry-run pattern. Overall, definitions are skeletal, sufficient for basic operation but well below the 70+ bar for production recommendation.

• Add output schema documentation for all tools. E.g., 'answer' should document: {"relevant_lines": [{"file": string, "line_number": int, "content": string}], "answer": string}. This enables LLMs to extract and chain results.
• Expand parameter descriptions with format and constraint details. E.g., 'path: The file path to read (relative to a granted root, or absolute POSIX path; no '..' traversal allowed).'
• Implement confirmation pattern for edit_file: add a 'dry_run' boolean parameter (default false) that returns the diff without writing, or require explicit user confirmation before overwriting.
• Add tool annotations via FastMCP's @mcp.tool decorator: mark read_file, list_dir, list_roots, search, answer, summarize with readOnlyHint=True; mark edit_file with destructiveHint=True.
• Clarify 'answer' vs 'summarize' in descriptions. E.g., 'answer: Answer a specific question by searching and extracting relevant lines. Use when you need targeted info.' vs 'summarize: Generate a high-level overview of an entire file. Use for context gathering.'