List Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not say whether listing requires the task to be finished, whether paths are returned for later download, whether the listing is paginated, or what happens if no files exist.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It reads as a label more than a usable instruction.

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 and the description need not explain return values, the tool still lacks annotation coverage and has two undocumented parameters. For a task-scoped listing it omits when it applies, what it returns conceptually, and how 'server' selection works.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies task_id is the key input but says nothing about the format of the ID, and the 'server' parameter — its default behavior, and how it interacts with set_default_server — is entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the result files belonging to a task. An agent can tell this is a read-style listing of task outputs, though it never distinguishes it from neighbors such as download_result or list_services.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus download_result (fetch contents) or get_task, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the task must be completed first. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'result files'.

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