SHOW_AVAILABLE_FILES

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior (listing files) and formatting constraints (recognized formats), but contradicts itself with a 'specified directory' that has no corresponding parameter. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Three sentences cover the main purpose and two constraints. However, the contradiction about the directory weakens the structure, as it adds confusion without earning its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description fails to explain the return format or structure. The tool has no parameters but implies a dependency on a directory, which is not addressed. Given the complexity (no parameters) and missing output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. However, it inaccurately implies a directory parameter exists, which misleads the agent about invocation requirements.

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 returns a list of audio/video files available to the mocoVoice MCP server, specifying that only recognized formats are returned. However, it mentions a 'specified directory' as a constraint, but the input schema has no parameters, creating confusion about how the directory is determined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like SHOW_AVAILABLE_FORMATS or START_TRANSCRIPTION_JOB. The description implies usage for listing files but lacks context or alternatives.

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