List Site Files

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying what types of files are returned (e.g., BIM source files, 3D models) and the filtering capabilities, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by return details, usage examples, and parameter/return summaries. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently covers necessary information in a compact format.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return values (though no output schema exists), providing sufficient information for an agent to use the tool effectively without overloading with redundant details.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions filtering by category and entity_uri but doesn't provide additional semantic context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List documents and files') and resources ('associated with a site'), distinguishing it from siblings like tacit_list_sites (which lists sites) and tacit_graphql (which performs GraphQL queries). It explicitly mentions the types of files returned (spec sheets, maintenance documents, etc.), making the scope 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 provides explicit usage guidance with examples of when to use it ('Useful for answering questions like...'), mentions a prerequisite (site_id 'from tacit_list_sites'), and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on file listing rather than site listing, GraphQL queries, or timeseries data. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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