Workspace List Recent Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — it auto-follows Sigma's pagination to the last page and normalizes entries/total/nextPage/hasMore across pages. It doesn't cover auth scope or what 'recently' means in time terms, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the pagination sentence is overloaded with backticked identifiers and parenthetical asides ("Sigma's value", "where Sigma sends it") that are harder to parse than needed. It earns most of its place but reads redundantly.

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, so return fields don't need explanation, and the pagination behavior is well covered. However, for a tool whose only input is an unexplained member_id, the description leaves the key invocation detail unstated.

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?

There is one required parameter (member_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it — not its format, whether it accepts emails vs IDs, or that it is required. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ("List the files a member opened recently"), which is enough to distinguish it from workspace_list_files and workspace_list_all_files by the recency angle. It never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts its scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word "recently" implies a use case, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over workspace_list_member_files, workspace_list_files, or workspace_list_all_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The second paragraph is behavioral, not usage-oriented.

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