list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: signed URLs are omitted (so the agent won't expect a download link) and returned training content is untrusted data, not instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection warning.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the core action, the scoping caveat (no signed URLs), the sibling routing, and the safety note all front-loaded and each earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly sketches the return (files/media and digests) and a key return constraint (signed URLs omitted plus untrusted-content warning). The gap on the `search` parameter and pagination specifics keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It mentions pagination, which maps to limit/offset, but says nothing about the `search` filter or the pagination semantics (defaults, max). The well-documented `uid` in the schema carries most of the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List uploaded files/media and digests') and distinguishes itself from the sibling download_file by noting you select a name here for download. The pairing of 'files/media' is slightly loose but still concrete enough for an agent to identify the resource.

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?

'Select a name for download_file' implies this is the discovery step preceding download_file, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for the listing need itself, so guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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