list_files_on_matter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error handling, or performance characteristics, which are critical for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

At only four words, the description is too terse. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices valuable information and fails to earn its brevity with substantive detail.

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?

Though an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the tool lacks explanation of pagination, ordering, or what constitutes 'files attached to a matter'. Given the 0% schema coverage and missing parameter details, the description is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters ('limit', 'offset', 'matter_id'). The agent receives no explanation of their purpose, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'files attached to a matter', making the tool's purpose apparent. It faintly distinguishes from siblings like 'add_file_to_matter' and 'get_file', but does not elaborate on scope or behavior beyond the basic function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_file', 'add_file_to_matter'), explicit usage context is absent, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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