Metis — List Outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only ordering (newest first); it says nothing about scope (which folder/output area is listed), whether subdirectories are traversed, caps on results, or permissions. That leaves the mutating/read nature and limits unstated.

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?

Front-loaded verb statement followed by a brief motivating sentence — nothing is padded. The second sentence is justification rather than operational detail, but it is short and does add 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a two-parameter listing tool with no annotations the description omits the scope of the listing and all parameter meaning. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what limit/subdir do or which outputs appear.

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 0% for two parameters (limit, subdir) and the description mentions neither. 'Newest first' hints at recency ordering but does not explain that limit truncates the list or that subdir scopes it, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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 concrete verb (list) plus the resource (what Metis has produced, i.e. files written by tools) and specifies ordering (newest first). The second sentence clarifies what 'outputs' means, though it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as list_generated_images, list_folder, or list_basket.

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 rationale sentence implies the use case — surfacing tool-created files that a chat client cannot otherwise see — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named. An agent must infer that open_output reads a listed item and list_folder covers general folders.

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