list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one meaningful behavioral qualifier ('with metadata'), implying the tool returns file listing information rather than file contents. It does not disclose limits, ordering, filtering, or what 'uploaded' encompasses, though the existing output schema covers the return structure.

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?

A single six-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a parameterless listing tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: the agent knows what action to take and what kind of result to expect. The only gaps are sibling differentiation (file_manager ambiguity) and clarification of the term 'uploaded', both minor given 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('uploaded files'), and a scope qualifier ('all'), making the core action unambiguous. The 'with metadata' qualifier usefully signals that file contents are not returned, distinguishing it from read_file. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling file_manager, which may also handle file operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file_manager or read_file, and states no exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case (enumerate available files) is only weakly implied by the verb and resource; with 38 siblings, routing guidance would materially help an agent.

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