List Office files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by documenting the exact file coverage and the important edge case that recognized-but-unopenable files are listed with reasons, preventing silent omissions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and return values, usage guidance, supported formats, and a missing-file behavior guarantee. The information is dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the primary action and result.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, which file types are relevant, how subfolder scoping works, and the behavior for unopenable files, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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?

There is only one parameter, subfolder, and the input schema already describes it completely, including the empty-means-everything semantics. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds Office files in the workspace and returns their absolute paths, host application, and VBA openability. The extensive extension list removes ambiguity about what counts as a project, and the explicit 'Call this first when the user has not named a file' distinguishes it from named-file tools.

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 gives a clear usage directive: call this first when the user has not named a file. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for the named-file case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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