files_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions optional MIME filtering and does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, root-folder handling, or return format. This is a read operation by nature, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant or vague wording. It front-loads the primary action and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps: pagination via cursor/limit, default root folder behavior, and what fields are returned for each file are not mentioned. It is a minimal viable description but lacks completeness for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially with 4 optional parameters.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already defines limit, cursor, folder_id, and mime_type. The description only restates the mime_type filter, adding no significant meaning beyond the structured schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in a folder'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like files_search_files, but the folder-scoped listing is distinct enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_search_files or files_get_file_metadata. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names.

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