appknox_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only action of listing files but does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or any potential side effects. The 'all files' wording could imply unlimited results, while limit/offset params hint at pagination.

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, immediate action, and a useful prerequisite note. No redundant information.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose and input derivation. It lacks explicit return-value information, but the term 'files' is clear. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clarity of the description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-reference for project_id (from appknox_projects) but provides no additional semantics for limit, offset, or version_code, which are already documented in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'files (app versions)' scoped to 'a specific project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like appknox_projects or appknox_analyses. It also notes the requirement for project_id, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: requires project_id obtainable from appknox_projects, giving clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinctions apparent.

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