List G-code files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description's one genuine addition is the 'newest first' ordering, which the annotations and schema do not convey; it says nothing about which storage the files come from, truncation behaviour, or what a returned entry looks like.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the most important fact (what is listed, and in what order) is front-loaded. The telegraphic fragment style omits an explicit verb, but nothing is padding.

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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the bar is low, and annotations carry the safety story. Still, with no output schema the description should indicate what a listed file contains or how results are bounded, and it is silent on both, including the default and maximum page size already present in the schema.

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 50%: 'filter' is documented in the schema, but 'limit' carries no description anywhere. The description does add real meaning beyond the schema for the filter by specifying 'case-insensitive', which the schema's 'contains this text' does not state, but it leaves the limit parameter's paging semantics entirely unaddressed.

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 the specific resource (G-code files on the printer) and the ordering ('newest first'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. The verb 'list' lives in the title rather than the description body, and it does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, qidi_file_metadata, which an agent might otherwise reach for.

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 and no exclusions. The mention of an 'optional case-insensitive name filter' hints at a search-style lookup versus browsing, but the description never says when to call this instead of qidi_file_metadata or qidi_start_print, nor what happens when the result set exceeds the limit.

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