list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds that pagination is cursor-based and ordering is by creation time, which is useful behavior context, but says nothing about page size limits or result boundaries.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and capabilities following. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Pagination, ordering, and the purpose filter are covered, but `limit` semantics are absent, leaving a small gap for a 4-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it clarifies that `after` is a cursor, `order` is creation-time ordering, and `purpose` filters to user_data. It omits the `limit` parameter entirely and gives no format or syntax detail, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 images uploaded to the DeepSeek Files API"), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not name or contrast itself against siblings like retrieve_file or list_conversations, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the read/list use case but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the alternative tools (retrieve_file, delete_file, upload_file) that an agent might confuse it with. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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