List a score's metadata files

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It usefully adds return-shape context (file names, sizes, modification dates) and enumerates what kinds of metadata files appear, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

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 purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the sibling download tool is mentioned at the end as a natural next step. The long enumeration of metadata file types is useful but slightly verbose; it still earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and the categories of files, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret results. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the only minor gap is the lack of explicit contrast with list_ftp_scoring_files.

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% for the single pgs_id parameter, so the schema already documents the expected PGS ID format. The description implies pgs_id contributes a score directory path but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource: listing downloadable metadata files in a score's Metadata/ directory, with a concrete example (PGS000001/Metadata/). It distinguishes itself from list_ftp_scoring_files by scope and from get_ftp_file by action, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_ftp_file for downloading file contents, which covers the most likely alternative action. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling list_ftp_scoring_files, leaving the metadata-vs-scoring distinction to be inferred from the directory path.

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