files_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, and describes the response shape (per-row tags/est_tokens/size_bytes/content_class plus total_est_tokens for budgeting). It stops short of stating pagination defaults or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then parameter nuances, then usage routing — a logical order with no filler. It is dense with semicolon-joined clauses, so slightly more packed than an ideal single-purpose blurb.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned row fields, the budgeting token total, filter semantics, and alternatives. Minor gaps remain around pagination limits/ordering, but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the distinction between 'project_id: null' (KB-only) and omitting the field (span everything), and that kind narrows to a single content class. It adds cross-parameter semantics rather than restating field docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List file metadata') plus the scope of its optional filters, and explicitly separates itself from files_search and projects_map. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Use to browse known structure; for keyword/content lookup use files_search; for a denser whole-vault dump use projects_map.' Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each.

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