List channel files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the source being the channel's Files tab and SharePoint backend, and specifies the return format. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a clear first line, args in a list with default/range/enum info, and a return type line. No wasted words.

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 a listing tool with no output schema, the description provides a return structure ({ count, items: [...] }) which is complete. It covers all parameters and behavior. The context signals show low complexity, and the description fully addresses it.

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 adds value by explaining that team_id and channel_id can be obtained from other tools and by summarizing the parameter defaults and enums. It does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the extra context justifies a higher score.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'files and folders stored in a channel's Files tab'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with messages or channels by specifying the file context and mentioning 'SharePoint-backed document folder'.

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 provides guidance on how to obtain required parameters (team_id, channel_id) via other tools, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools for listing files. It implies usage for retrieving channel files.

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