list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, sorting, and filtering behavior but does not mention read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 primary action ('List files in the Prisme.ai workspace') and lists supported features. No wasted words, appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description could mention return format (e.g., list of file objects). It does not. However, the core action (listing files) is clear, and the required parameter is implicit from the schema. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Elasticsearch-style filtering' context for the query parameter, clarifying its format beyond the schema's generic 'filter object'. This adds meaningful value. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the key parameter benefits.

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 the tool lists files in a workspace and mentions key capabilities (pagination, sorting, filtering). It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_file or get_file, but could explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_automations).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not include when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Only capabilities are stated.

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