List Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope of the operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'listing', such as pagination, ordering, or the type of files (e.g., only top-level files or recursive). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description is adequate but adds minimal extra context.

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 concise sentence, 'List all files in a course.', with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the tool's purpose. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and full schema coverage, and annotations provide basic safety context. However, the description does not clarify what 'files' means in this context (e.g., course files vs. uploaded files), nor does it mention any output structure or potential limitations. It is minimally acceptable but could be improved by specifying the file scope or linking to related tools.

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 description covers 100% of parameters (course_id), and the description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics. Since the schema already explains the parameter, the description adds no value here, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 action (list) and the resource (files in a course), using a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by specifying 'all files' and 'in a course', but it does not differentiate from other file-related tools like list_folders or list_course_submission_files, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or alternative tools, such as list_folders for folder structures or list_course_submission_files for submission-specific files. The tool's usage context is entirely implied by its name and description.

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