list_data_asset_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the behavior of listing files and folders and handling empty paths, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides essential context about the path parameter. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters, it should do more to cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error cases. The description is minimal but adequate for a basic listing tool, though gaps remain in transparency and parameter details.

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. It adds meaning by explaining that 'path' specifies the location within the data asset and that an empty path retrieves root contents, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail 'data_asset_id' (e.g., format or source) or other nuances like path syntax or constraints, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders within an internal data asset'), specifying the scope ('at the specified path'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_data_asset' (which likely retrieves metadata) and 'download_and_read_a_file_from_data_asset' (which accesses file content). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_data_assets' (which might search across assets rather than within one), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 usage by stating 'Empty path retrieves root level contents,' providing context for when to use the default path. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_data_assets' or 'get_data_asset_file_urls,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, such as required permissions or asset availability.

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