List My Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. It does add useful context by naming what comes back (names, sizes, IDs) and by scoping to personal storage, but it says nothing about pagination, default limit, or whether subfolders are traversed.

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?

Three tight clauses, with the scope constraint and return fields front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing. 'Read-only' is the one sentence fragment that duplicates the annotation rather than adding information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, return fields, and the alternative. Only pagination/default-limit behavior and folder-recursion semantics are left unaddressed.

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% and both parameters (limit, search_term) are documented in the schema with constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no guidance on sensible limits or how search_term interacts with results — 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) and pins the scope precisely: 'personal Canvas storage (not course files)', with the returned fields named. An agent can distinguish it from list_course_files, list_group_files, and list_folders without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling to use instead for the adjacent case ('For course files use list_course_files'), so the when-to-use and when-not-to-use decisions are both resolved in the text. Little is left to inference about which listing tool to pick.

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