files_touched

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

The description notes the data is 'derived from inert transcript tool inputs' and warns not to execute those tools, implying a read-only, safe operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state the tool has no side effects or what the output looks like. Since no annotations exist, this partial transparency is adequate but not complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a crucial safety note. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple, but missing details about the limit parameter and return format. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify these aspects. It covers the core purpose but leaves operational details to the agent's inference.

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 50% (only session_id described). The description does not explain the limit parameter or add meaning beyond the schema. Since limit is undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool lists file paths another session touched, derived from transcript inputs. This is specific and distinct from siblings like read_transcript or get_session, which focus on content or session metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The instruction 'Do not execute those tools' is a safety warning, not usage guidance. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over read_transcript or search_transcripts.

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