list_cms_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only action ('List all'), but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or what exact file types are included beyond the vague '...'. It could be more explicit about the safety profile and return behavior.

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 key verb and resource, and uses parenthetical examples to add value without extra words. It is concise and to the point.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic clarity about what is listed (CMS files) but does not describe the response format, pagination, or the full set of file types. For a simple listing tool this is adequate, but it leaves some gaps in expectations.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description has no requirement to explain parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter information is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all CMS files', scoped to 'the site'. It provides examples ('HTTP functions, cron jobs, ...') that clarify scope and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_http_function (a specific function) or create_cms_file/update_cms_file (write operations).

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 usage as a general listing tool for CMS files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. With many sibling tools, some guidance on preferring this over get_http_function or list_pages would be helpful, but it is adequate for a simple list operation.

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