列出文件

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists only current non-expired files by default, supports filtering/pagination, and includes an includeExpired parameter for pending cleanup records. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify default scope and edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the default scope (non-expired), filtering/pagination capabilities, and a use case. It could mention that includeExpired covers not-yet-cleaned records, but that's already in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for selecting this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level summary of what filtering is possible (keyword, tag, pagination) but doesn't add details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('当前未过期的文件' - current non-expired files), and explicitly mentions filtering and pagination capabilities. It also distinguishes itself by noting this is the tool to use when the identifier is forgotten ('忘记标识码时用它找回文件'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_file_info and download_file.

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 context: it's for browsing/finding files when you don't have the identifier, and mentions it lists non-expired files. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_file_info instead). The sibling context helps but the description itself could be more explicit.

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