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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'lists files', and the description adds real context beyond the annotation: slash-separated folder representation, conversation-state resolution order, and token-scoped fallback. It stops short of describing what each returned file entry contains, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the paragraph then drifts into plan-management and strategy-creation orchestration (in_progress plan items, create_strategy, conversationUpdate) that repeats sibling tools' responsibilities. Several sentences could be trimmed without losing list_files-specific information.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers selector resolution, target ownership scoping, folder-path semantics, and prerequisite workflow. An agent has everything needed to choose the right target and invoke it correctly.

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 100% and both params are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining the conditional business logic behind omission (conversation state, then MCP token scope) and by telling the agent to copy the exact returned strategyId/revisionId pair when no conversationUpdate was issued.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists files in any saved strategy revision owned by the authenticated user') and the folder-path note clarifies the resource model. It does not directly name the sibling it replaces (e.g. get_file for a single file, file_history for versions), so an agent must infer the boundary from the surrounding prose rather than a crisp contrast.

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?

It states explicitly when to omit selectors (current attached/open strategy, conversation state then MCP token fallback), when to resolve another target via list_strategies/list_revisions, and the prerequisite ordering with create_strategy and update_plan_item. This is genuine when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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