list_conversation_files

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns all files or paginated results, what file types are included, or if it requires specific permissions. The pagination implied by limit/offset is not mentioned.

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 very short (one sentence) and uses a dash for structure, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. While not verbose, it lacks important details like pagination and file scope, making it insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'archivos' means (e.g., file types, metadata), how to interpret the response, or how the query parameter works. For a list tool, more context is needed to avoid confusion with similar list tools.

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 67% (phone and offset have descriptions). The description adds minimal value by linking 'query' to the phone parameter, but it does not explain limit or offset beyond what the schema provides. Since limit lacks a description, the tool description should cover it but does not.

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 lists files shared in a conversation with a client, using the Spanish verb 'Lista' and specifying the resource 'archivos compartidos en una conversacion'. It also includes '[query]' hinting at filtering by phone. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_conversation_file and download_conversation_file, it could explicitly state that it returns a list of file metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_storage_files, list_knowledge_files, etc. The description does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer from the name and parameters.

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