List files

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, especially the coverage envelope semantics and the mandatory requirement to reflect coverage:'partial' in user-facing answers. It also warns against claiming a complete listing when coverage is partial. This is valuable operational guidance that annotations do not provide.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence establishes core purpose, the second defines scope and alternative tools, and the third conveys critical response semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the coverage envelope and URL output. It clearly handles scope exclusions and pagination context. Minor gaps remain, such as default sorting or exact response item fields, but the essential operational details are covered.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds context about pagination and the coverage envelope but does not describe individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the store's uploaded files'), and an explicit output aspect ('with their URLs'). It differentiates itself from video-related tools by naming get_video/list_videos as the alternative, making the tool's scope immediately distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly states the tool covers only IMAGE and OTHER files and that videos live in a separate scenario, directing the agent to use get_video/list_videos instead. The pagination options are also clarified by mentioning pagination and auto-pagination context, leaving little ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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