List file shadow operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description accurately describes a read-only retrieval operation without contradiction. It does not add extra behavioral context like pagination quirks or authorization requirements, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose and returned fields, the second lists supported filters. It is front-loaded, uses no redundant words, and every phrase adds value without being verbose.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (source file, shadow path, device, user, computer, status), which is essential. It also covers all filter dimensions supported by the parameters. It does not detail pagination or default behaviors, but those are documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters are already documented with detailed descriptions (e.g., period, status, pageLimit). The description's mention of 'filters for time period, computer, group, domain, shadow status, and last-N-days activity' maps directly to schema properties but adds no new meaning beyond grouping them. Baseline 3 is 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'file shadow (mirror copy) operations' performed for files transferred to removable devices. It enumerates the returned fields and filters, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like dcm_file_trace_list.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: when you need to list shadow operations for removable-device transfers. It mentions available filters, giving practical guidance on narrowing queries. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but its scope is evident; no exclusions are necessary given the siblings.

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