list_autorag_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List files' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose response shape, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the result is a bare file list or includes metadata. The minimal wording is not misleading but is under-transparent.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential operation and resource immediately, which is appropriate for a low-complexity list tool.

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 two-param tool with no output schema, the description is adequate for selection and invocation, but it does not clarify what information is returned (e.g., file names, sizes, timestamps) or any instance-specific context. The absence of an output schema places more burden on the description than is currently met.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the implicit context that account_id and rag_id identify the AutoRAG instance; this meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in an AutoRAG instance'), making the core purpose clear. It is not a tautology because it adds the instance-level scoping, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_autorag_jobs, leaving that to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, conditions for use, or exclusions, so an agent must infer from the tool name and siblings rather than from explicit guidance.

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