list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list (read-only) but does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or whether the list is exhaustive. For a read-only listing tool this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any annotation support makes the description insufficiently transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then scopes by cycle and component. It is concise and every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It tells the agent what the tool lists and the valid components, but omits cycle format, return shape, and any behavioral details. An agent could call it correctly with reasonable inference, but the description alone does not fully equip the agent.

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 must compensate. It names the two parameters (cycle, component) and gives valid component values, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain what a 'cycle' is, what format it should take (e.g., '2017-2018' vs 'P_PRE'), or how the component values map to actual file names. Partial compensation only.

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 ('List') and resource ('data files') with clear scoping by cycle and component, and enumerates the valid component values. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_cycles or search_variables.

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 implies usage context: call this when you need data files for a given cycle and component. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like search_variables or build_dataset, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The component enumeration gives some guidance, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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