list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about the API endpoint and that it returns used/limit bytes plus ready URLs, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is safe/read-only or describe the response format in detail.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It efficiently covers what, where, and why.

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 it is a simple parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description provides solid context: the resource, endpoint, usage information, and practical guidance on using returned URLs. Slightly more detail on the response shape would be helpful but is not critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 the /bots/files library, specifies the HTTP endpoint (GET /api/bots/media), and includes usage byte information. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_graphs and list_channels.

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 advises taking ready-made URLs from this tool to avoid re-uploading the same content, providing a clear use case relative to upload_file. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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