osf_files_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic listing operation without detailing any traits like recursive listing, pagination, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal 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 a single, succinct sentence of 14 words that conveys the essential function without any wasted verbiage. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are likely covered elsewhere. However, the description omits behavioral context (e.g., traversal mode, permissions, rate limits) and usage guidance, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and when to invoke it.

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 already describes both parameters (id and path) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'OSF Storage files and folders' for a project/component, and specifies optional path filtering. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'osf_components_list' or 'osf_contributors_list' which deal with different resources.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as for uploading or modifying files, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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