maid_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return categories and suggests periodic use, implying a read-only non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any state or requires specific permissions, but the context suggests a safe query.

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 well-structured with headers, bullet points, and an args list. It is concise yet informative, with no redundant sentences. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It lacks explicit error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters in the 'Args' section: manifest_dir, issues_only, and status. It provides defaults and the effect of each parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema types.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'file-level tracking status using MAID Runner'. The status categories are explained, distinguishing it from sibling tools like maid_list_manifests or maid_validate.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section with specific scenarios (project health check, onboarding, compliance audit) plus tips on filtering. This provides strong guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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