fusion_find_uploaded_files

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is the 'cheapest way' to perform this verification and it scopes results to a UCM account. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a practical use-case sentence and a clean Args section. The failure-mode explanation earns its place because it clarifies why this tool matters. Minor redundancy exists with 'Read-only' duplicating the readOnlyHint annotation.

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-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key usage scenario. The output schema exists to document return values, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: both parameters are explained with plain semantics, and 'account' includes a concrete format example, `fin$/payables$/import$`. It could add details like case-sensitivity or wildcard behavior, but it is sufficient 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List UCM document ids matching a file prefix in an account.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from job-status and import tools by framing it as the way to check whether an upload actually landed in the right place.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: verifying that a bulk upload landed in the correct account, including the characteristic failure mode of files sitting in accounts no import job looks at. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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