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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact return contents (file tree, sizes, dependencies, version, metadata fields), which is more than the annotations alone provide. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action (list file tree) and then concisely lists additional returned data and usage pointers. It is dense but not bloated, with useful detail in a compact form.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned in detail and even includes a usage note about the version for write tools. It clearly states the relationship with update_project_metadata. Minor missing point: no mention of error conditions or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter projectId. It implicitly does so by stating the tool lists a Floot project's tree and metadata, making it clear projectId identifies that project. While not explicit, the context is sufficient for the simple parameter.

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 verb 'List' and the resource (a Floot project's virtual file tree), and enumerates the included data: file sizes, dependencies, current version, and detailed project metadata. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming update_project_metadata as the tool that changes these settings and notes that the version should be passed to write tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is where to look up those settings' and contrasts with update_project_metadata which changes them. It also instructs the user to pass the version to write tools as expected_version, giving a concrete usage pattern.

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