ls_list_files

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that results are paginated, explains the response structure (meta.page with currentPage, lastPage, total), and reveals cross-store behavior and API key boundary. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise with four sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds pagination detail, and the remaining sentences cover cross-store nuance. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers pagination structure and cross-store constraints. However, it does not describe the fields returned for each file (e.g., id, name), which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional nature of variantId and pagination, but does not add new semantics beyond what the input schema already provides for each parameter.

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 'List all files' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (like ls_get_file) by focusing on listing, and the context of many list tools for different entities makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains optional filtering by variant and pagination, and provides a specific condition (cross-store note) for when variantId is required. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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