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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless contributes real behavioral context by noting that credentials and generated output are hidden from results, which matters for interpreting what comes back and hints at include_ignored. It stops short of covering pagination or result shape.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy: a two-clause fragment with no verb does not earn its place as the sole guidance for an 8-parameter listing tool.

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?

For a required-workspace/build_id listing tool with pagination, sorting, pattern matching and an include_ignored flag, plus no output schema, the description explains almost none of the calling contract. Only annotations and the hidden-files note give an agent anything to work with.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: path, sort, limit, cursor, pattern, build_id, workspace and include_ignored are never explained. The phrase "hidden" only obliquely gestures at include_ignored.

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 is a bare noun fragment ("Files; credentials/generated output hidden") that largely restates the tool name and the annotation title "List build files" rather than stating an action or scope. An agent must infer from the name and annotations that this lists files for a build.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus files_search, files_read, files_diff, or files_delete, all of which appear in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no scope, no exclusions are stated.

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