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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds the behavioral nuance that it targets the 'live deploy' specifically, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, recursive listing, or response format, which are not covered by annotations.

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, concise sentence with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It covers the core function but omits details like whether the list is recursive, includes directories, or has limits. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable, but it could provide more context about the response structure.

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 50% (only 'prefix' has a description). The tool description indirectly clarifies the 'site' parameter by stating 'a site's live deploy', but it does not explain 'prefix' beyond what the schema already provides. This partial compensation is modest, so the description adds some meaning but not enough to fully bridge the gap.

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 the action (list), the resource (files of a site's live deploy), and adds the detail 'with their sizes'. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_deploys or read_file. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 for inspecting a live deploy's files but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like read_file or delete_files. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer the context from the purpose alone.

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