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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and an output schema exists, so the description's contribution is limited to naming the returned fields (name, size, readability). It adds no information about ordering, pagination, or behavior for an empty/unknown project, which is a modest but real gap given the annotations already cover safety.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second carries the usage rule. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 readOnlyHint covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to establish purpose and call sequence, which it does. The one remaining hole is the undocumented project_id, which is why this is not a 5.

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 single parameter project_id gets no explanation in the description — no format, no note on where the id comes from (e.g. list_projects), no failure behavior for an invalid id. The description neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds anything beyond the bare property name.

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?

States concretely what the tool returns — the project knowledge-base files with name, size and readability — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read_project_file sibling by saying it is the discovery step used when the exact filename is unknown.

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?

"Зови перед read_project_file, если точное имя неизвестно" gives both the trigger condition (unknown filename) and the alternative to reach for once the name is known (read_project_file), so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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