panelica_file_manager_get_v1_files

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds the auth requirement 'Required scopes: files:read', which is useful beyond the annotations. 'Read-only' repeats readOnlyHint, and no rate-limit or pagination behavior is disclosed, so it does not earn a 5.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the entire description is compact. The HTTP line and 'Read-only' are somewhat redundant with the tool name and annotations, but the block is still appropriately sized and scannable.

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 GET list call, required user_id and optional path/sort/hidden are present in the schema, and safety is covered by annotations. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on how this listing relates to sibling file-manager endpoints, leaving some context to inference.

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 the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter docs. It adds nothing meaningful about sort_by, sort_order, show_hidden, or path beyond what the schema already provides, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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 opens with 'Lists files and directories in a given path' — a specific verb, object, and scope. It is clearly a directory-listing operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling file-manager list tools (e.g., trash listing) or name alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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 implies the tool is for listing a directory's contents, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative file-manager tools. An agent must infer the appropriate use from the operation itself, so this is at baseline rather than above.

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