Files: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields appear in the returned file records.

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?

A single three-word phrase with zero wasted words and the verb front-loaded. Nothing to trim; fully efficient for what it attempts to convey.

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 simple paginated list tool with fully documented params and safety annotations, the description is barely sufficient. It omits pagination awareness and any distinction from the other files_* siblings, leaving gaps an agent would have to resolve from the schema alone.

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 100% with two optional pagination parameters (page, limit) already documented with defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, range, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 clear verb (list) and resource (uploaded files), so the agent knows the operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like files_get or files_delete, nor does it describe scope (all files? paginated set?), which keeps it below a 5.

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 indication of when to use this versus files_get, files_delete, or files_upload. There is no conditional guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named, which is the minimum bar for a 3.

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