list_local_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's contribution is the 'local cache' scoping, implying only previously downloaded data is returned and no network fetch happens, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about truncation at the limit, ordering, or what happens when the cache is empty.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return-value detail is not required. Still, for a paginated list tool with a 200-item default cap, the agent gets no signal about whether results are truncated or how to page, leaving a real operational gap.

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 only 50%: study_uid is documented ('Only list files for this study') but limit has no description beyond a default of 200 and a minimum of 1. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on limit (truncation? pagination? ordering?).

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource, 'DICOM files in the local cache', which is meaningfully narrower than the sibling list_nodes or a generic search. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it (e.g., versus retrieve or search), and no prerequisites such as having previously run retrieve to populate the cache. The 'local cache' phrasing hints at the context but nothing is stated outright.

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