List the show files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only', describes the exact returned payload and its ordering ('newest first'), notes the presence of a dialog when one is open, and states the bridge version prerequisite (0.35.0). It stops short of describing failure behavior when the bridge is absent or the console is unreachable, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The safety-relevant word 'Read-only' is front-loaded, the return contents follow, and the usage guidance plus version requirement close it out. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating every returned field and the sort order, so an agent knows precisely what to expect back. For a zero-parameter read tool, the addition of the bridge version requirement and the dialog caveat leaves nothing material 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied by the baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list' the show files) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the current show, the shows folder, and every .show file with name, size, and both ISO and local wall-clock times. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as gma3_save_show or gma3_list_children without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow condition: 'Use it before gma3_save_show to choose a name that does not replace another show.' That names the alternative tool and the situation that selects it, so no inference is required. A when-not clause is unnecessary because the tool is a zero-parameter read with a single clear purpose.

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