get_api_schema_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get files') without detailing aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters but not explicitly stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence: 'Get files in an API schema'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy to parse and understand at a glance, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 5 parameters (including pagination and role-based requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain critical aspects like what 'files' entail (e.g., metadata vs. content), how pagination works, or the response format. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation.

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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'apiId', 'schemaId', 'cursor', 'limit', 'versionId'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'versionId' is required for certain roles) or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but lacks enhancement.

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 'Get files in an API schema' clearly states the action (get) and resource (files in an API schema), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_schema_file_contents' or 'get_api_schema', which might handle related but distinct operations, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_schema_file_contents' (which might retrieve content) and 'get_api_schema' (which might retrieve schema metadata), the lack of context or exclusions makes it unclear how this tool fits into the workflow, leading to potential misuse.

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