List Micro protected files

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that no content is downloaded and that both protected and public resources are included. It does not mention pagination, recursion, or ordering, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes: listing, protected/public, storage resources, linked project, and no content download. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations already provided. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. A brief note about alternative tools would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description's 'linked project' phrasing aligns with that without adding new semantic detail.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource: 'protected and public storage resources for the linked project'. It also adds the important boundary 'without downloading contents', which distinguishes this from file retrieval or upload tools like micro_file_upload.

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 for listing storage metadata rather than fetching contents, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference rather than direct guidance.

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