Workspace List Member Files

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), so the description goes beyond them by disclosing the auto-pagination contract: it follows Sigma's pagination to the last page, aggregates `entries` from every page, reports `total` only when Sigma sends it, and always returns `nextPage` null / `hasMore` false. That unrequested detail materially changes how an agent interprets results and cost of a call.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with pagination mechanics following as supporting detail. Phrasing is somewhat dense with backticked keys and nested parentheticals ('(hasMore false where Sigma sends it)'), but no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still helpfully explains which keys the aggregate response will and won't contain, which is the main ambiguity for a paginating list tool. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about `member_id` format or whether inaccessible/invalid members error out.

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 carries the burden, and it clarifies that `limit` is the per-page size rather than a cap on total results. However, `member_id` is never described beyond being implicit in 'a member can access', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (list) and resource (files: workbooks, data models, folders) scoped to a member's access, which is enough to separate it from workspace_list_files or workspace_list_all_files. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the scope phrase rather than an explicit contrast.

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 member-scoped framing implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over workspace_list_files, workspace_list_all_files, or workbooks_list_workbooks_shared_with_member. The note that 'limit is the page size' and that all pages are read gives useful invocation context, but routing guidance is left to inference.

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