List Company Files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the return structure (categories and file fields), making it clear this is a metadata listing, not a download. However, it omits potential details like pagination or authorization, but these are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details the return structure. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, sibling differentiation), the description fully covers the essentials: it states what is returned and the data fields. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no confusing parameter info, making it appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: browsing available company files and categories. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('company files'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get-company-file' by emphasizing the listing/overview nature.

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 implies the tool is used for browsing/listing files but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get-company-file'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any exclusion criteria.

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