files_remote_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'list remote files' but does not disclose pagination (cursor, limit), filtering (ts_from, ts_to, channel), or whether the operation is safe (no side effects). The agent cannot infer behaviors like rate limits or result 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 a single sentence, which is short, but it sacrifices necessary detail. Conciseness is valuable only when it preserves clarity; here it omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what 'remote files' means or how the tool interacts with other file-related tools. With 5 parameters and no guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (channel, cursor, limit, ts_from, ts_to). The agent must guess their formats and purpose from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List remote files.' clearly states the action (list) and resource (remote files), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like files_list, which also lists files. Without context, an agent might not know when to choose this over files_list.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_list or files_remote_info. The description offers no context about prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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