فایل‌های پروژه

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are ordered newest first, files come from both conversation and task attachments, and each entry carries its attachment origin. Pagination behavior via offset is left to the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what is listed and its scope, then covers ordering and the file_id hand-off. Nothing is wasted, though the compressed parenthetical phrasing makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the key returned fields (file_id, attachment location) and the ordering, which is what an agent needs to chain into mizito_read_file. Only pagination limits and total-count behavior are unstated.

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 100%, so offset, file_name, and project_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the indirect note that project_id chains from mizito_list_projects via the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list files of a project) with a precise scope: files attached in the project's conversation AND its tasks. It also distinguishes itself from the read-side siblings by naming mizito_read_file and mizito_get_file_link as the consumers of the returned file_id.

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?

Clearly frames the context (files attached anywhere in a project) and points to the follow-up tools that need the returned file_id, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is the right starting point. It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it versus siblings like mizito_list_projects or mizito_list_tasks.

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