Browse files in connected storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing pagination and the cursor round-trip, but the cursor mechanics largely restate the schema's own cursor description and it says nothing about ordering, limits, or error behavior.

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 compact sentences, with the listing purpose front-loaded and pagination second. No filler, though the pagination sentence is slightly redundant with the cursor parameter description.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the one non-obvious interaction pattern (cursor paging). Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether listing is recursive.

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, cursor, integrationId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('List files on any integration') and names the supported integration types (cloud or MASV Storage Gateway). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_package_files or transfer_files_from_integration, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage contexts by naming the two integration kinds, and the pagination note implies repeated invocation, but it never says when to prefer this over siblings or any preconditions such as needing a valid integrationId.

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