List app files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns a paginated page, provides usage totals, supports cursor-based pagination and prefix narrowing, and explicitly notes it renders no UI. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's scope.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place (page structure, totals, pagination, prefix, opaque nature, UI behavior). 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 the available annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role, key parameters' behavior, and differentiation from siblings, without needing to explain return shapes because the output schema handles that. It's a model description for a list 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%, providing baseline meaning for all parameters. The description adds semantic richness by explaining how limit/cursor work together for paging and that prefix narrows results, plus the conceptual distinction of these being opaque app files. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 resource ('files an app has stored'), and clearly states the output (page of path/size/mime/version plus usage totals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly separating opaque user files from structured data collections.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for listing opaque user files like attachments and exports, as opposed to structured data. It implies the alternative (data_list) without naming it, and the pagination/prefix options give practical usage guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use file_read for content'), but the context is strong.

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