octri_list_generated_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (files with sizes) and a hard dependency on a prior fetch, which is meaningful. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination for large file lists, or what happens if the build+language was never fetched.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the prerequisite. No filler and nothing is buried.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, return content, and dependency. It omits list size limits, ordering, and failure behavior when the artifacts were not fetched, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 coverage is only 33%: build_id and language have no schema descriptions. The phrase 'of a previously fetched build+language' does add real meaning — these two parameters must reference an already-fetched combination rather than arbitrary IDs — which partially compensates. project_id's fallback-to-selected-project semantics come from the schema, not the description.

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 and resource ('List the files') scoped to 'a previously fetched build+language' and notes the payload ('with sizes'). This distinguishes it naturally from octri_read_generated_file, yet it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing precondition: 'Call octri_fetch_artifacts first.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule that most siblings lack. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing to octri_read_generated_file for single-file retrieval.

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