list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return format (dictionary with file names and count) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. Since it's a list operation, read-only behavior is implied but not confirmed.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear docstring for the parameter and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and return format. It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but these are less critical for a list tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining the 'pattern' parameter supports '*' wildcard and has a default of '*', which is meaningful beyond the schema's type definition.

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 states the verb 'list', the resource 'files', and the context 'in the current Universe account'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'describe_file' and 'analyze_file_structure' which focus on individual file details.

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 includes details on the pattern parameter and its default, implying usage for listing files with optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or complementary tools like 'describe_file' for details).

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