list_files

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states behavior: returns file_id, size, path, largest first; explains name_contains matches anywhere in full path. Lacks auth, rate limits, but for a read-only listing, these are less critical.

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?

Description is one paragraph but well-structured: purpose, filter explanation, use cases, return info. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 is simple (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, filters, return fields, ordering. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains extension (no leading dot) and name_contains (substring anywhere in path). The limit parameter is not explained, but its default and type are in schema. Description adds value beyond schema.

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 it's for browsing indexed files by metadata, not content search. It distinguishes from content search and gives specific filter examples (extension, name_contains). Verb 'Browse' and resource 'indexed files' are specific.

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?

Description says 'Use for exploration like...' and explicitly states 'not a content search', implying when to use this tool vs sibling tools like search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 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.