list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries some burden. It reveals the required access scope (read_files) which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, or default sorting. Transparency is average.

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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second highlights key features and requirements. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics (purpose, access scope, filtering) but does not explain return format or pagination behavior. It is somewhat incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only adds a vague mention of filtering by 'media type, filename, status, and more,' which aligns with the query parameter. It does not add significant new meaning 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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (files uploaded to the store) and gives examples of file types. It is specific enough to distinguish from other list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 mentions required access scope (read_files) and that filtering is supported, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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