whodb_platform_app_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are paginated one page per request, and the workspace argument applies per-call "without changing defaults" (i.e. non-mutating session state).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the pagination and workspace caveats. No filler sentences, though the workspace sentence is slightly tangential to the core listing behavior.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the useful essentials: what gets returned (app.json, shared files, pages) and how results are chunked. It stops short of describing ordering or how to know the full page set is exhausted, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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%, so every parameter (id, env, fields, version, workspace.*) is already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only a light nuance about workspace being per-call and non-persistent, which the schema largely already conveys.

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 ("List") and resource ("draft files of one hosted app") and enumerates the contents: app.json, shared files, and every page. This distinguishes it from generic file listing tools, but it never names the closest sibling, whodb_platform_app_page_files, or contrasts with app_version_view, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase "read one page per request so large apps fit" implies a paginated usage pattern for large apps, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the related but distinct app_page_files or version-view tools.

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