list_files

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

The description explicitly states 'No files are written to disk by this tool,' which is a key behavioral detail not captured by annotations (none provided). It also mentions that the agent receives URLs and can use them as needed. This adds useful context about the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature. However, it does not address error handling or rate limits.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences plus a structured parameter and returns section. It front-loads the purpose and key behavioral detail. The use of a docstring-like format is clear but could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, it is well-organized and informative without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the return format (list of dicts with fields: filename, size, type, checksum, download URL) and notes the non-destructive behavior. No critical information appears missing for standard 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 has one parameter, record_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description adds a brief explanation: 'record_id : int, The numeric Zenodo record ID.' This clarifies the parameter's meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide additional constraints or examples, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 'List all files in a Zenodo record with metadata and download URLs,' specifying the action (list) and the resource (files in a record). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_record (which returns record metadata) and search_records (which searches records), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it does not mention that for full record metadata one should use get_record, or that list_files is specifically for retrieving file listings. There is no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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