workiva_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'lists files' and explains parameter formats, but it does not disclose how files are returned (e.g., metadata only, pagination behavior, whether it includes trashed files, permission requirements). The read-only nature of a list operation is implied, but without annotations, more detail is expected for full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the 'Args' section succinctly lists parameters without extraneous information. Every sentence contributes meaningful value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool appears simple, and the output schema likely documents return values. However, the description lacks context about the scope of 'files' (e.g., which file types are included) and how this listing relates to more specific listing tools. Given the presence of siblings and no annotations, the description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples. It clarifies the OData filter syntax, order_by format, and the default for max_results. The guidance is practical, though it could be expanded with a list of valid filter fields or acceptable values for 'kind', but the provided examples are sufficient for basic usage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List files in the Workiva workspace.' It defines the scope as the entire workspace, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_list_documents or workiva_list_spreadsheets, which may be more specific types of file listings. This means the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished from related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this specific tool versus alternatives such as workiva_list_documents or workiva_list_spreadsheets. It does not mention whether this tool returns all file types or whether more specific tools should be preferred. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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