appwrite_list_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior, result limits, sorting capabilities, or what the operation returns beyond 'files'.

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 single sentence is not verbose, but given the tool has four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, it is inappropriately brief rather than appropriately concise.

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 operation with filtering parameters ('queries', 'search') and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits expected return structure, pagination details, and query syntax.

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 description coverage is 0%. While the description mentions 'bucket' (implicitly referencing 'bucket_id'), it provides no semantics for 'site', 'queries', or 'search' parameters, leaving four parameters effectively undocumented.

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 provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('files in a bucket'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'appwrite_get_file' (single retrieval) and 'appwrite_delete_file' (destructive). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise and it lacks specificity about Appwrite storage buckets.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'appwrite_get_file' or how to leverage the 'queries' and 'search' parameters for filtering. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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