list_files

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does real work: it discloses supported formats, the .gz variant, that paths are relative to an allowed folder, what metadata is returned (type, size), and a hard result cap of 500 files. It never states read-only/safety semantics implicitly assumed by 'list', but nothing is misleading.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then format list, then return shape, then the workflow instruction, then the parameter detail. Every sentence adds usable information and none restates the title or name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still previews path/type/size and the 500-file truncation limit that an agent must know to interpret results. For a one-parameter, non-destructive discovery tool, nothing an agent needs 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for `pattern`, and it does: a case-insensitive glob applied to the path, with two concrete examples ('*2024*', 'logs/*.json'). It omits what the empty default does, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 the data files you can query'), enumerates the supported formats, and positions itself in the workflow with 'Use this first', which implicitly distinguishes it from downstream siblings like profile_file, sample_file, describe_file and query.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this first') and explains the payoff ('those paths can be used directly in SQL, e.g. SELECT * FROM ''sales.csv'''), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. that an already-known path makes this call unnecessary.

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