Mistral MCP by usefulapi

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

With destructiveHint=true already declaring the write/irreversible profile, the description still earns credit for disclosing the concrete consequences — processing halts and billing stops for that job. It stops short of stating idempotency, reversibility, or the fate of partially processed output.

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?

Two compact sentences; the effect is front-loaded and the API endpoint follows as supporting detail. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter management action with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, effect, and the exact endpoint. No consequential gap remains.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented there. The description only restates it via the endpoint path, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (cancels) plus resource (Mistral batch job) and adds the effect (stops processing and billing). An agent can distinguish it from get_batch_job and list_batch_jobs at a glance without opening any schema.

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 qualifier 'running' implies the tool applies only to active jobs, which is useful selection guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no note on what happens when called against an already-completed job.

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

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=true, while the description describes the operation as an 'additive configuration', which frames it as non-destructive and creates a direct tension with the annotation an agent could act on. Credit is partial because the description does disclose the management endpoint and the required/optional parameter split, but the conflict over the write's safety profile is a real gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint and the required/optional split. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint path duplicates what a caller rarely needs at selection time.

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 7-parameter creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what it creates and which inputs are mandatory, but says nothing about what is returned (e.g. a created agent id) or any auth/quota constraints. No output schema exists, so return-value information had to come from the description and is absent.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Requires model and name; instructions, tools, completion_args, description and handoffs are optional' restates the required/optional split without adding syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a Mistral Agent') plus the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/agents), and the parenthetical '(additive configuration)' hints at the scope of the change. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the create verb is naturally distinct from the get_/list_ siblings.

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 tells the agent what is required (model, name) versus optional, which implies when the tool can be called, but it never states when to create a new agent versus reuse/get an existing one, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds that deletion is 'permanent' (irreversible) and identifies the underlying Management API endpoint, which is useful beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about permissions, cascading effects, or error behavior.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with irreversibility and scope. The 'Destructive.' sentence largely duplicates the destructiveHint annotation, a minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Missing usage preconditions keep it from being fully complete.

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 100% and the single file_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema. The description only echoes file_id via the endpoint path, adding no semantics beyond structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (uploaded file) plus the scope ('permanently'), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like mistral_get_file and mistral_list_files. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., confirm the file is not in use by a batch job). 'Destructive' signals caution but gives no decision rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying REST mapping (GET /v1/agents/{agent_id}) and notes the returned configuration, but does not cover error behavior or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the API mapping. No filler text; every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter annotated read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention what fields the configuration includes or that a missing agent errors, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single agent_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a single agent entity with its configuration.' The word 'single' distinguishes it from mistral_list_agents, though no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'single agent,' which suggests fetching one by id rather than listing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs mistral_list_agents or when-not guidance, nor mention of what happens if the id is invalid.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying API route (GET /v1/batch/jobs/{job_id}), which is mildly useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., not-found or invalid-UUID handling).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint reference. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, annotations already carrying the safety profile, and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete. The only soft spot is that 'details and status' is a vague characterization of the returned payload.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema. The description only echoes the parameter via the URL template, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve details and status for a single batch job'), which clearly separates it from mistral_list_batch_jobs. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but 'single' conveys the distinction well enough.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one job by id when you already have the job_id, as opposed to listing jobs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as mistral_cancel_batch_job or mistral_list_batch_jobs.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining job is small. It adds that only metadata (not content) is returned and identifies the underlying Management API endpoint, which is modest but real added context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the API mapping. Efficient, though the endpoint sentence is largely redundant for an agent that only needs to call the 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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, this is nearly complete; 'metadata' implicitly tells the agent what comes back. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on error behavior for unknown file_ids would round it out.

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 100% and the single file_id parameter is already documented as a UUID. The description adds nothing beyond echoing {file_id} in the endpoint path, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('metadata about a specific uploaded file'), and the word 'metadata' usefully distinguishes it from mistral_get_file_url and mistral_list_files. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific uploaded file' hints you need a known file_id, but there is no statement of when to choose this over mistral_get_file_url or mistral_list_files. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the returned URL is signed and temporary (i.e., it expires and grants delegated access), which shapes how an agent should use it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome (a temporary signed download URL), followed by the endpoint reference. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the artifact (a temporary signed URL). Only the expiry window/duration is left unspecified, a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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 the single file_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema. The description only re-encodes it as a path segment via the endpoint string, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a temporary signed download URL for an uploaded file'), which is clearly distinct from mistral_get_file (metadata) and mistral_list_files. It also pins the underlying endpoint, but it never names a sibling tool to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need a downloadable link, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over mistral_get_file or mistral_list_files, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying Management API call (GET /v1/libraries/{library_id}), which reinforces the read semantics and hints at error behavior for missing ids, but says nothing about permissions, response shape, or failures.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint as secondary detail; nothing is wasted, though the API path is borderline redundant with the docstring-style purpose.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate what 'details' are returned, leaving the agent to guess at the payload.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents library_id as a UUID. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (details about a single document library), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_libraries. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mistral_list_libraries or mistral_list_library_documents. The only routing signal is the implicit 'single' scope.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the management API endpoint and the base/fine-tuned distinction, which is useful context but not rich behavioral detail such as error handling, permissions, or return format.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes the endpoint as supporting detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with complete parameter schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough for correct invocation. It does not describe the shape of the returned details, but no output schema exists and this is a minor gap for a straightforward get operation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single model_id parameter with an example. The description's note that the model can be base or fine-tuned adds little beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve details') and resource ('a single model'), and distinguishes the scope from list-oriented siblings by specifying 'single model'. It also clarifies that the target can be a base or fine-tuned model, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Retrieve details for a single model' implies the tool is used when a specific model ID is known, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of mistral_list_models or how to discover a model_id. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result ordering (sorted by creation time) and the underlying Management API endpoint (GET /v1/agents), which helps the agent reason about pagination ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the API path is trailing supporting detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the ordering, and the endpoint. It could note pagination traversal (using page/page_size to iterate) but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% – page and page_size are both documented with defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about paging semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List agent entities in your account') and adds the ordering ('sorted by creation time'). The verb 'List' cleanly separates it from the sibling mistral_get_agent, but the description never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiates itself within the list/get pairs.

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 listing verb plus 'in your account' implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus mistral_get_agent for a single agent, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful scoping context ('your organization and user') and the backing endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering that a manual API doc would typically include.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the API endpoint appended as a reference. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description gives sufficient scope and filter intent. Pagination expectations and default page size live in the schema, so little is missing.

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 100%, so all six filters (page, model, status, dates, created_by_me) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'optional filters' generically, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('batch inference jobs') and scope ('for your organization and user'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mistral_get_batch_job or mistral_cancel_batch_job, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'with optional filters' implies the filtering use case, and the presence of mistral_get_batch_job for single-job retrieval makes listing vs. fetching inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/files), which is mildly useful for mapping to API docs, but says nothing about pagination semantics, result ordering, or whether results are scoped by anything beyond organization.

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?

Two compact sentences: the resource scope first, then the transport detail. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

A read-only list tool with no output schema and only optional filters is well served by this description. The only real gap is paging behavior across a potentially large file collection, which an agent listing files would benefit from knowing.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics (page numbering, defaults, filter meanings). The description adds no filter syntax or combination guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (uploaded files belonging to your organization), with concrete examples of what those files are (fine-tune data, batch inputs/outputs). This clearly separates it from list_models, list_agents, and list_batch_jobs, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of file kinds, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to mistral_get_file for a single file or mistral_get_file_url for downloads, both of which are plausible alternatives an agent must disambiguate against.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scope detail (owned or shared libraries) and the backing endpoint, but stays silent on pagination behavior and return 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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose and scope front-loaded, followed by the API reference. No filler.

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 simple read-only list tool whose parameters are fully described in the schema and whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the four optional params (page, page_size, search, page_token) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (RAG document libraries) plus the ownership scope ('you own or shared with you'). It does not, however, name the closest sibling mistral_list_library_documents, leaving the agent to infer the library-vs-document distinction.

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 scope clause implies when the tool applies (surfacing libraries accessible to the caller), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like mistral_get_library or mistral_list_library_documents.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that documents are library-scoped and cites the underlying Management API endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/page_size params, nor about what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the concrete API endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description omits return-shape and pagination guidance that an agent would need to page correctly, and does not distinguish the result set from list_files. Annotations only cover the read-only safety hint.

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 100%, so page, page_size, search and library_id are all documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: lists documents scoped to a given library, which agent can distinguish from mistral_list_libraries and mistral_list_files. However, it doesn't explicitly state how it differs from list_files (the library-scoped vs. global file listing).

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?

Usage is implied by requiring a library_id ('uploaded to a given document library'), so an agent knows it's for enumerating a specific library's contents. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any named alternative (e.g., list_files) to route between.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result spans both base and fine-tuned models and maps to GET /v1/models. It does not mention pagination or response shape, so it stays at a 3.

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 front-loaded sentence covering scope, followed by a terse endpoint reference. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and where it routes. The only minor gap is whether results are paginated or how they are shaped, which an agent might want to know.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but there is nothing to document, and the endpoint note is a small supplementary detail.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (models) plus scope: all models for the account, both base and fine-tuned. This implicitly contrasts with the singular mistral_get_model sibling, but does not name it explicitly to force the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'available to your account' (discover which models you can target), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative to mistral_get_model for single-model lookups.

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