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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, explains retained_until semantics, describes folder filtering behavior, and notes zero token cost. It doesn't discuss pagination or error handling, but for a simple list operation it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return fields, optional parameter behavior, retention context, and cost—each sentence adds distinct value without 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?

Given the simple tool complexity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the tool's purpose, return values, parameter behavior, and retention semantics. The only minor omission is explicit pagination details, but the description overall is complete for an AI agent.

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 100%; the folder parameter's constraints are fully described in both the schema and the description. The description's mention of folder path and subfolders mirrors the schema, adding no new meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List files currently stored for the authenticated Vee3 account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling file tools (delete, download, extend, move, upload) by describing a read-only listing operation.

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?

It says 'Use file_name to reference a file in other capabilities,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (to obtain file references for later operations). It doesn't explicitly mention what it's not for, but the context of sibling tools and the listing nature make the alternative usage clear.

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