list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by stating the tool operates on configured base directories, supported file types, and returns a specific structure including a distinction between file scan and ingest_data sources. It does not discuss permissions or pagination, but these are less critical for a listing operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and concise. It avoids redundancy with the schema and every part adds value.

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 description plus schema is sufficiently complete: it clarifies the return object and sources concept, and parameters are fully described. It doesn't elaborate on file object fields or empty states, but these are not essential for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 supported files (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) and their ingestion status, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the return structure, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like query_documents or ingest_file.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the description implies its use for inspecting file inventory and ingestion status, and the mention of sources vs. files gives some context. It does not state when to prefer it over query_documents or status.

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