list-uploaded-files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists files, without indicating whether it is read-only, how pagination behaves, what file metadata is returned, or any authentication requirements. This is notably sparse.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a second sentence with usage context, but as-is it is acceptably concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the primary source of context. It lacks critical details such as pagination (page/page_size), filtering by scope, and what the returned list contains. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is only 33% (scope has a description, but page and page_size do not). The tool description does not mention any parameters or compensate for the missing parameter information, leaving the agent without guidance on pagination behavior or default values beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'files previously uploaded to the syntx.ai account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload-files and delete-file, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving previously uploaded files but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to upload-files or that it should be used instead of list-chats or other list tools.

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