list_vrm_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action (listing files) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, latency, access permissions, or side effects. For a read-only listing tool, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without an output schema, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., file names, paths, URIs). Given the minimal context and no annotations, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'type' with enum and description). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 it retrieves a list of VRM models and VRMA animation files ('利用可能なVRMモデルとVRMAアニメーションファイルの一覧を取得する'). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like load_vrm_model or set_vrm_expression, but lacks explicit differentiation phrasing.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context of use, or when not to use it. With siblings focusing on loading and animation, the listing function is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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