List files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read operation' sentence is redundant. What does add value is the disclosure of what each returned file carries (sha256 of bytes, indexing status), which helps a caller reason about the response without an output schema. Pagination behavior is still undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences plus a tag; purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. The trailing 'Read operation' sentence is wasted tokens against annotations that already say the same thing.

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, the description usefully describes the returned items (files, indexing status, sha256) and annotations cover safety. The main gap is pagination semantics for cursor/page_size, which an agent needs to iterate a source fully.

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 description says nothing about any of the four parameters, and schema coverage is only 50% (cursor and page_size have empty descriptions). With half the parameters undocumented in structured data and no compensating explanation, the description leaves parameter meaning to the name alone.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('the files in a file-upload source'), plus what the listing returns (indexing status, sha256). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_brain_sources (sources, not files) and download_files (fetching, not listing).

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 supplies a concrete use context — comparing a local folder against the source and uploading only changed files. That tells the agent when this tool is valuable, though it names no alternative (e.g., list_brain_sources) and gives no explicit exclusions.

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