list_result_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists files and returns metadata, but does not disclose that it is read-only, whether it accesses the file system or a database, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral aspects like default directories or recursion behavior.

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 concise and uses a clear structure with a brief purpose statement followed by labeled parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary text, though the Python docstring style (e.g., 'Parameters ----------') is slightly verbose for an MCP description. Overall, 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?

The description explains parameters and return type, which is helpful given the output schema exists. However, it lacks context about default behavior (e.g., what directory is scanned if none provided), whether listing is recursive, and the relationship to simulation runs. Given the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters) and no annotations, the description should provide more context to fully inform the agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear semantics for all three parameters: run_id 'Filter to a specific run's output directory (optional)', directory 'Directory to scan (overrides default output dir)', and formats 'Comma-separated list of extensions to include (e.g. '.aer,.csv')'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 simulation result files' and specifies that it returns a JSON array of result file metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_aer_results, query_csv_results, and query_evt_results that query specific result types, and from export_results_to_json that exports results. The verb 'list' combined with 'result files' is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as query_aer_results, query_csv_results, and query_evt_results also deal with results, but the description does not explain that list_result_files returns file metadata while the query tools return parsed data. The agent is left to infer this distinction on its own.

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