list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only names artifact categories. It does not clarify that this is a listing/read-only operation, whether it returns metadata or file contents, ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with useful parenthetical examples and no wasted words. Its fragmentary structure slightly weakens front-loading because the leading 'Files' can be misread as a verb.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description still omits critical context: that id is the run id, how this differs from read_file, and what 'files' means operationally. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the invocation semantics remain incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented id parameter. 'The run' implies id is a run identifier, but the description never explicitly maps id to run, nor explains its format or required nature.

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 identifies the resource as files produced by a run and gives examples of artifact types, but it does not state the action ('list') explicitly. It is distinguishable from read_file only indirectly, and the fragmentary phrasing makes the purpose vaguer than the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_files versus read_file or other siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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