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

With no annotations, the description itself signals a safe read-only action via 'List' and specifies exactly what information is returned (extensions, MIME types, extract notes). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is minimally sufficient.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource first, with the key detail categories in parentheses. No filler or repetition.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return categories completely. An agent can decide to call it and know what kind of information to expect.

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?

The input schema is empty with no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add beyond confirming this tool requires no arguments.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'supported RAG upload file types', further narrowed by extensions, MIME types, and extract notes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like file_upload and files_list, which operate on actual files rather than the type catalog.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to know which file types are accepted for RAG uploads. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against siblings such as file_upload or files_list.

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