list-agent-files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the read-only nature via the GET endpoint, the SDK method it mirrors, and the return shape ('returns the file array'). It omits auth requirements, permission scope, pagination, and whether the array is bounded, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a useful mirror reference and the endpoint/return. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, retrieval target, and return type, which is close to what an agent needs. Auth/permission context and result-size expectations are the only missing pieces.

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 is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that agent_id is the UUID returned by list-agents. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the files attached to an AI agent', which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like add-agent-files and delete-agent-files. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named list-generated-files or list-uploaded-files, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the resource target; there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion of alternatives. The schema's reference to list-agents gives an implicit prerequisite chain (resolve agent_id first), which is the only real guidance present.

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