List files in a Mudbase bucket

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the optional search and MIME type filter add behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether the operation is a simple read of metadata—nor does it mention any side effects beyond the implied 'list'.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource ('List the files stored...'), and every clause earns its place by adding relevant scope and optional filter details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what kind of data is returned—whether it is a list of file names, metadata object, or paginated result. The description omits return details and does not mention the pagination parameters that exist in the schema, leaving an agent to infer the behavior from the schema or sibling patterns.

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 input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It does mention 'search' and 'MIME type filter', but these simply echo schema descriptions without adding new meaning such as case sensitivity, exact-match behavior, or how filters combine.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('files in a Mudbase storage bucket'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `mudbase_list_documents` or `mudbase_list_buckets`. It also scopes the action to 'one' bucket, which adds specificity.

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 the use case—enumerate files—but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `mudbase_search_documents` or `mudbase_list_documents`. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for when the filters should be used.

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