file_operations_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List file operations' with no mention of pagination behavior, sorting, output format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with six parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it very concise. However, it is on the edge of under-specification given the tool's parameter richness, so it does not earn a perfect 5. The structure is simple and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only the bare minimum. It does not explain the pagination parameters (limit, offset, nextPath), the meaning of 'file operations', or what the response looks like. This leaves important context missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with each of the six parameters having a description (e.g., 'Operation type (e.g. export, import)', 'Number of results'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and a resource ('file operations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_operations_info and file_operations_redirect. However, 'file operations' is somewhat vague, leaving the exact nature of the listed items open to interpretation.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, and there is no reference to sibling tools. The simple verb 'list' provides no context for when this should be preferred over other list tools.

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