openwebui_list_files

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and specifies the return payload (file names, IDs, sizes, content types). It does not mention pagination or authentication, but these are not critical for a straightforward 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential return-field details and a practical cross-reference. Every sentence contributes value with no filler.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return content. It could mention potential size limits or sorting, but such details are not necessary for basic usage. The cross-reference to add_file_to_knowledge adds useful context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by definition. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4.

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 'List all files uploaded to Open WebUI' with a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates the returned fields (names, IDs, sizes, content types), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_info (single file) and upload_file.

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 makes the primary use case explicit: to list all files. It also provides a forward-looking hint, saying to use the returned file IDs with openwebui_add_file_to_knowledge. It does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternatives, but for a simple list operation, this is sufficient context.

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