Files: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default page size of 25, that only one page is returned, and which fields each record carries. It does not mention auth requirements or the ordering of results, but the added context is substantial.

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, zero waste, with the core action first, the return shape second, and the sibling routing last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and pagination behavior, which an agent otherwise could not know. It omits result ordering and whether pagination is capped, minor gaps for a simple paged list.

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% and both parameters already document their defaults, so the description's mention of '25 by default' and 'one page' largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., how page interacts with limit).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List uploaded files') and immediately scopes it: one page of the project's uploaded files. It names the sibling it is not ('Use files_get for one file's details'), so an agent can distinguish list from get without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes single-file lookups to files_get, which is the main ambiguity for this tool. It does not state exclusions such as when to prefer search or filtering tools, but the context needed to choose correctly is present.

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