list-company-files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only list operation and indicates the output is grouped by category, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, pagination, or whether file contents or metadata are returned.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only listing tool, the description conveys the essential scope ('all company-level files') and the output organization ('by category'). It does not enumerate the exact categories or specify the returned shape, but the low complexity makes the description adequate.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies because no parameters require explanation.

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') and resource ('all company-level files'), and adds 'organized by category' to define the output structure. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling get-company-file or get-employee-files beyond the 'company-level' scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over get-company-file or get-employee-files, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions for using it.

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