mailchimp_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what each action returns (e.g., 'files stored in the File Manager') but does not disclose whether this is read-only, any permissions needed, side effects, or response structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the main resource concept, followed by a clear, organized list of actions and their meanings. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the action mappings and required IDs but omits behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, and response format. It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves some gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context by explaining the action enum values and specifying which IDs are required for which actions, but the schema's parameter descriptions already include this information. The added value is modest.

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 identifies the resource domain: File Manager assets and folders, plus campaign folders. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the exact resource types. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making the overall purpose slightly implicit.

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 implies usage context by defining the scope (File Manager and campaign folders) and listing specific action options. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions, but the resource-specific mapping offers adequate guidance for selection.

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