files_browse

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the sandbox constraint that only folders under the home folder, SQL folder, or SINGLESTORE_MCP_FILE_ROOTS may be browsed, plus which file types are surfaced. It does not describe pagination or result size, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contents, followed by the default and constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 browse tool whose annotations already signal safety and with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the kind semantics, the default path, and the browseable roots. Only pagination/large-folder behavior is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it defines kind='sql' for .sql/.sas and kind='notebook' for .ipynb, and explains that path defaults to the SQL folder (the schema only shows default null). This adds real meaning over the bare schema, though it does not fully spell out path format.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (a folder for the file browser) plus exactly what is enumerated: subfolders and .sql/.sas/.ipynb files. An agent can tell what it returns and how kind maps to extensions, though it never names the closely related sibling viya_files_browse for differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the file-browser context, the path default, and the allowed-root restriction, so an agent knows the general when-to-use situation. However, it provides no explicit comparison or routing against near-identical siblings such as viya_files_browse or notebook_files.

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