openclaw_agents_files_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It adds 'Read-only' and 'Wraps agents.files.list', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, error behavior, or performance characteristics. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise with one sentence and a note. It front-loads the key action 'List files attached to an agent' and has no redundant text. Every word 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?

The tool has low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the core functionality and read-only nature, but does not mention the return format or error conditions. It is mostly complete for a list tool, lacking only minor details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what's in the schema, such as format, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List files attached to an agent (instructions, system files, etc.).' It specifies the verb (list) and the resource (files attached to an agent), and distinguishes from siblings like openclaw_agents_files_get and openclaw_agents_files_set through its listing action.

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 implies listing usage by noting it is read-only and wraps a list API, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or set, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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