sigma_list_all_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it automatically follows pagination and returns ALL items organization-wide, providing insight into the operation's scale and handling of pagination beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and key behavior with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema and annotations, reducing the need to explain returns and safety. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage alternatives, and the optional parent_id creates ambiguity about what 'ALL' means. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain parent_id or type_filter. The parameter names give some hint, but their relationship to the 'ALL files/folders' scope is ambiguous (e.g., does parent_id restrict scope?). This leaves the agent guessing about semantics.

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 tool lists ALL files/folders in the organization, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'files/folders'. It distinguishes from sibling sigma_list_files by emphasizing organization-wide scope and automatic pagination.

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 implies use when an organization-wide list is needed, contrasting with folder-scoped listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so while context is clear, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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