list_files

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: it does not download file contents, and preview_limit is capped at 50. However, it does not mention what happens when no identifiers are provided, whether multiple lookup modes compose as union or intersection, or whether read access is always granted.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by tightly scoped bullets for each parameter. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are described, the description is largely complete for a simple file-metadata listing operation. The main gap is the lack of guidance on edge cases such as omitting all three identifier parameters or supplying multiple identifier sources simultaneously, but this is a minor omission for a read-only list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters in plain language: explicit file ids, result-attached files, asset-linked files, and the preview cap. It adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of clarifying parameter interactions or expected value formats.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List file metadata attached to a result or asset.' It also clarifies scope by stating it does not download contents, which distinguishes this metadata-listing tool from anything that fetches file bodies. The sibling context further confirms this is the file-listing operation, not a general query tool.

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 parameter descriptions provide clear context for using file_ids, result_id, or asset_id as lookup routes, which implies when the tool applies. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings like query_results or query_assets, and it does not state whether the inputs are mutually exclusive, combinable, or authoritative when multiple are supplied.

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