sql_editor_files

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing else notable (no filtering, pagination, or scope limits), so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the ordering detail is placed at the end where it is easy to skim. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence, which is slightly less front-loaded than ideal but wastes nothing.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what the result set is and how it is ordered, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A note on scope (all .sql files vs. only the user's) or a pointer to a sibling for other file types would have made it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by describing a bare folder listing.

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 names a specific resource (the .sql files in the SQL Editor's folder) and an ordering guarantee, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings such as files_browse, notebook_files, or sql_editor_inbox, leaving ambiguity about which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping listing tools in the sibling set. The 'SQL Editor's folder' phrase implies context but does not route the agent explicitly.

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