yaaif_files_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a listing (read-style) operation and adds useful detail about including artifact_name/version when present. However, it does not disclose what happens if no session exists, whether results are paginated, what the output structure is, or any permission requirements.

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 with the core purpose stated first, followed by a concise prerequisite. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the agent relies entirely on this short description. It provides the tool's purpose and a prerequisite, but it is missing parameter semantics, return-value details, failure modes, and alternatives. This is enough to start but not enough to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (agent_id, arguments, session_id). The only hint is 'active authoring session', which loosely implies session_id, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. An agent cannot infer what arguments should contain or how agent_id relates to the call.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('ingested files'), and a specific scope ('active authoring session'), and it adds that artifact_name/version is included when present. This is not a tautology and is informative on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling yaaif_session_files_list, so it loses the top score.

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 instruction 'Call yaaif_dev_session_ensure first' is an explicit, actionable prerequisite that tells the agent what to do before invoking this tool. It provides clear usage context, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like yaaif_files_search or yaaif_session_files_list, nor does it mention exclusions.

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