list_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a listing action and hints at has_nonpublic_counterpart semantics only via cross-reference, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, what metadata is returned, or whether pagination or limits apply.

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 compact: two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second efficiently redirects to get_filing for a relevant term instead of duplicating context.

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 single-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the core action and workflow ordering. It is close to sufficient, though it would benefit from a brief note on expected file metadata or read-only behavior since annotations are absent.

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 schema provides no description for accession_number (0% coverage), and the description only ties it to 'an accession' and the download workflow. This adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter name, but it does not specify the expected format or how to obtain the accession number.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('files attached to an accession'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from download_file by positioning itself as the step before downloading.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this before download_file,' which gives clear sequencing guidance. It also points to get_filing for understanding has_nonpublic_counterpart. It does not fully enumerate when not to use other sibling tools, so it stops short of a complete routing guide.

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