List files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and result completeness. The description adds context about the content (school documents) and the inclusion of URLs, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already imply. It does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses an em-dash list of examples for clarity. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The tool is simple (2 optional parameters, read-only, open-world), and the description sufficient for an agent to know when and why to use it. Annotations and schema round out the full context.

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 100%, with both query and school_id fully described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies that this tool returns a list of school-shared documents (handbooks, menus, forms, newsletters) with download URLs. The verb is implied by the tool name and the phrasing 'Documents the school has shared' unambiguously conveys a listing action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_file.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve shared school documents of various types. It implicitly differentiates from download_file by mentioning download URLs, and from list_links/list_forms by listing typical document types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not reach the highest bar.

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