files_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or returns paginated results (implied by page/count params but not stated). The 'detailed' parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of impact on response 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?

The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it sacrifices useful detail; a slightly longer description could include pagination or filtering hints without being verbose.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no required ones, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately states the basic purpose but does not address pagination, filtering strategies, or when to use this tool over similar siblings like search_files. It is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: only the 'detailed=True' tip is provided. The filtering parameters (user, channel, types, etc.) are already documented in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('files') with clear scoping ('for a team, channel, or user'). It differentiates from sibling tools like files_info (single file) and files_upload (create). The mention of 'detailed=True' adds specificity.

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 vs alternatives like search_files or conversations_history. It lacks context for selection criteria, such as when filtering by user or channel is appropriate. The only hint is on response detail level.

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