fluig_form_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'list file names' but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid documentId), whether the operation is read-only (likely but not explicit), or any side effects. It lacks depth for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and file types. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and the resource types. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., list of strings, hierarchy), error scenarios, or any behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (documentId) having a basic description 'Form documentId.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the format or constraints of documentId.

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 'file names that make up a form'. It specifies the types of files (HTML/JS/CSS/images), which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fluig_form_file or fluig_form_full, which could also relate to form files.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., fluig_form_file for a single file), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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