list_generated_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (Dictionary by category), which is useful. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient.

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 short sentences with no superfluous content. The key information is front-loaded (action and resource), followed by examples and return type.

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 tool with no parameters, a simple list output, and good sibling differentiation, the description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline is 4 per guidelines, and the description does not need to add param info.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'AI-generated files', specifying subcategories (launches, nodes, configs). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like 'list_launch_sessions' and 'list_ros2_nodes' by focusing on generated files rather than runtime entities.

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?

Usage is implied as a simple listing tool, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the straightforward nature, it's adequate but lacks proactive differentiation.

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