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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation warning is needed. The description adds useful context by stating the returned attributes and positioning the tool as a discovery step before file reading. It does not disclose edge cases such as empty projects or file counts, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar for additional disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives the when-to-use rule. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

With only one obviously-named integer parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description provides the essential tie to read_project_file. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain project_id beyond the broad 'project knowledge base' context. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but with zero schema coverage the description should have explicitly tied project_id to the source project.

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 identifies the resource (project knowledge base files) and the attributes returned (name, size, readability), making the listing operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from read_project_file by framing it as the precursor when the exact filename is unknown. However, the verb 'list' is only implied, not explicitly stated, which costs a point.

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 instructs to call this tool before read_project_file when the exact name is unknown, naming the sibling alternative and the condition. This is strong routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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