list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all files,' which implies a non-destructive read but does not mention pagination (size/index), ordering, return format, or required permissions. It adds context about file types (macros, traffic files, selenium scripts) but remains thin on operational details.

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, front-loaded sentence (about 13 words) that efficiently conveys the action, scope, and examples. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what resource is listed and gives examples of file types, and the schema thoroughly documents pagination. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or what the response contains (metadata vs. content), which would enhance completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what kinds of files are meant ('macros, traffic files, selenium scripts, etc.'), giving semantic context to the resource. It does not duplicate parameter details, but the file-type examples provide helpful disambiguation.

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: 'List all files for an application' with a specific verb (List), resource (files), and scope (for an application). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_file and create_file by specifying the listing action and the application context.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to list a specific application's files), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives such as 'use get_file to retrieve a specific file' or 'use list_apps to view applications.' Clear context is present, but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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