List files

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: newest-first ordering, the exact fields returned per file, the next_cursor pagination contract, and a handoff to the download tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and ending on the sibling handoff. Restating structuredContent {files:[...], next_cursor} is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and useful as a quick shape preview.

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 six-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, the two file kinds, all main filters, ordering, pagination, and the follow-up tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining what the kind values mean in practice and by tying record_id to 'the record a file is attached to'. It does not mention response_format at all, leaving that parameter to the schema.

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 and resource ('Lists files') plus scope: knowledge-base files vs attachments on records, with an explicit ordering (newest first). The two kinds are defined in domain terms ('documents the workers read'), which an agent cannot infer from the enum alone.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to heliyos_files_get when a download link is needed, and explains the available narrowing options (kind, record_id, name). It stops short of stating when-not-to-use it, e.g. that browsing records themselves belongs to heliyos_records_list.

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