hires_list_candidate_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral details: each entry contains a download URL requiring Bearer auth, relative time, file metadata, and a type field. It does not mention pagination or empty results, but the auth hint and field breakdown offer meaningful transparency beyond the tool name.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the return fields with no wasted words. Every clause adds relevant 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 one-parameter read/list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently details the response structure (uuid, download URL, relative_time, metadata, type) and auth requirements. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and likely usage.

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 already fully describes the only parameter ('Candidate ID (integer) or alias (string)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no supplementary parameter details, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('files attached to a candidate'), with specific detail on what constitutes 'files' (resumes and other documents). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hires_list_application_attachments and hires_get_candidate_resume by focusing on candidate-level files.

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 usage is implied: use when you need all files for a candidate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or draw comparisons to alternatives, such as when to use hires_get_candidate_resume for just the resume or hires_list_application_attachments for application-level files. Absence of exclusions but clear context keeps it at 'implied usage'.

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