linkedin_list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the tool's scope ('files this server has produced or can use') and including both previous exports and resume/cover-letter documents. It does not fully describe return format, but with annotations covering safety, the added context is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'List files,' and contains no filler. Each sentence adds meaningful context: what files are listed and when to use it. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the file scope and provides use cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_resumes tool, which could cause minor ambiguity in tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters needing explanation. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 tool lists files the server has produced or can use, specifically 'previous exports and available resume/cover-letter documents.' The verb 'List' plus the resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resumes (which only lists resumes) and export_* tools (which create exports).

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to find a resume path before applying to a job, or to locate an earlier export.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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