List all files stored under reports/resources/, returning each filename, size in bytes, and served URL.
List all files currently stored under reports/resources/. Returns filename, size in bytes, and served URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses return values (filename, size, served URL), which is helpful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List'), auth requirements, pagination, or whether it recurses into subdirectories.
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?
Two concise sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the return information follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential information: what is listed, where, and what is returned. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though minor ambiguities about recursion remain.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params), and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, as the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond an empty 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 under reports/resources/'), and specifies the return fields. It clearly scopes to a subdirectory, distinguishing it from broader file-listing siblings like files_list.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resources_add_report, files_list). The scope implies its purpose, but there are no when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.