List Mistral 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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, no note on default page size limits, no return-shape hints. With annotations carrying the burden, the description contributes almost nothing extra.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits any hint about filtering by purpose or paginated retrieval, relying entirely on the schema, and has no output schema to fall back on for return-shape expectations.

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 page, purpose, and page_size are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ('List files uploaded to your Mistral account'), so an agent knows it enumerates files rather than retrieving a single one. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mistral_get_file or mistral_list_libraries, which the definition leaves to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told to prefer mistral_get_file for a specific file, nor when filtering by purpose is appropriate, despite several file-related siblings existing.

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