teamleader_files_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention pagination behavior, response format, error cases, or any side effects. The presence of page/page_size parameters in the schema is not reflected in the description, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and required inputs. No filler or redundant content, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and required parameters, but lacks detail on pagination, return payload, and usage boundaries. With no output schema, the description could reasonably be expected to mention what files list returns, but it remains minimally viable.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples of subject_type values (contact, company, deal), enriching the schema's generic description, but it does not elaborate on page/page_size semantics. The required-parameter statement duplicates schema information, offering minimal additional value beyond the examples.

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 clearly identifies the operation: "List files linked to a subject" with specific examples of subject types. It is distinct from sibling tools like teamleader_files_upload and teamleader_files_download, which handle different file operations.

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 states that subject_type and subject_id are required, giving clear usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., upload/download) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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