List CityJSON input files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose what the tool returns: 'Returns filenames only.' It alsotells the agent to never ask for an absolute path, which is useful interaction behavior. It could go slightly further by noting side-effect-free behavior, but the word 'list' plus the return statement make the safety profile reasonably clear.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose first, then usage conditions, then a user-interaction constraint. Every sentence adds value; there is no boilerplate or redundant text.

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 an zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it specifies the source (configured input inbox), the scope (JSON files), the return content (filenames only), the trigger conditions, and an explicit interaction constraint. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is an empty object, so the schema fully covers the parameter surface. The description appropriately adds no unnecessary paramter detail; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 JSON files in the configured input inbox.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cityjson_open or cityjson_import by indicating it is a listing operation over the input inbox, not an open/import action.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when the user did not name an attached/imported file or when cityjson_import reports multiple candidates.' It also instructs against asking for absolute paths, giving the agent clear behavioral guardrails. This is strong usage guidance for a simple listing tool.

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