list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: files are listed in two groups (open first, then recently accessed) and timestamps are missing for files outside the active team. This goes beyond what the input schema reveals.

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, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core result is stated first, and the important caveat about timestamps is placed second. Every clause contributes value.

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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly says what is returned and the caveat about missing timestamps; the only minor gap is that it does not describe the overall response envelope or that page/pagination is absent.

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% for the single limit parameter, which already documents default, range, and sorting by updatedAt. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists Paper files' and immediately distinguishes what it includes (open files, then recently accessed files in active team). This makes it clearly different from sibling tools like open_file, create_file, and list_checkpoints.

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 gives clear context about what subset of files is returned and the ordering, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that selection is not ambiguous.

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