List Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the sharing-visibility rule at a high level ('or files another user shares'), but omits pagination, result-size limits, and how path scoping behaves at the root — details the schema partially carries for fulcra_userid but not as behavioral context.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by useful workflow context. No filler, though the second paragraph describes a broader pattern rather than this tool specifically, which slightly dilutes focus.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and all three parameters are schema-documented, so nothing essential to invocation is missing. Minor gaps remain around pagination and large-listing behavior, but the read-only annotation and full schema coverage make this largely complete.

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%, so all three parameters (path, fulcra_userid, include_versions) are documented in the schema itself, including the include_versions/restore_file relationship. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'List the files in the user's Fulcra account, or files another user shares.' The second paragraph names sibling tools (write_file, read_file, get_data_updates) and situates this tool in that workflow, which sharpens the distinction, though it never explicitly says when to prefer list_files over read_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?

The description explains the inter-agent file-passing pattern and mentions the related tools, which implies why an agent would list files. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule or alternative selection guidance (e.g., when to list vs. read directly, or how to discover shared paths).

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