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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on the draft tree and returns file paths and sizes rather than file contents. This clarifies the scope beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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 no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the operation, the target scope, and the returned data.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the input (site slug), the scope (draft tree), and the return content (paths + sizes). A note on ordering or pagination would improve it, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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?

The schema provides only 'slug: string' with no description, and the description implies slug identifies the site whose files should be listed. However, it does not explain the slug format, how to obtain it, or how it relates to get_site or list_sites, leaving part of the parameter semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the files in a site's draft tree' and adds the result shape ('paths + sizes'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sites (which lists sites) and read_site_file/write_site_files (which handle file contents).

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the usage context from sibling names.

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