list_files

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 useful context about what is returned (all analyzed files with specific fields), but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any other operational behavior beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and the returned fields with no wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with one fully documented required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed and which fields appear in the result. Minor gaps around ordering or pagination remain, but no output schema exists and the description carries the key return-value information.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and documents the sole scan_id parameter as 'scan_id returned by scan_file'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that schema, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List all analyzed files' and enumerates the returned fields (index, parent, type, size, score, sha256). This clearly tells an agent what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like search_strings or scan_file.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is used after scan_file to inventory results; there is no statement about when to choose this over search_strings or other siblings.

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