getFiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'List files' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, paginated, scoped to a project, or requires authentication. The schema implies a project ID requirement, but the description omits this context.

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?

Extremely concise (two words), but at the cost of clarity. The description is under-specified and does not serve its purpose. It lacks structure and detail, making it barely acceptable.

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 tool has a nested input object with two required fields and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the parameters, what format controls, or what the output looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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 description provides zero information about parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain 'pathParams', 'format', or 'projectId'. The agent must infer meaning from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List files' restates the tool name with minimal variation. It indicates a listing operation but lacks specificity about what files (e.g., in a project, system-wide) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAttachment' which retrieves a single 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring a project ID, nor does it indicate that the tool lists files for a given project (implied by input schema but not stated).

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