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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the server falls back to conversation state and then the MCP token when selectors are omitted, so omission is not an error. The remaining workflow sequencing text (plan items, create_strategy preconditions) is useful but drifts beyond describing this tool's own behavior.

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 scoping rule and fallback behavior are correctly front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the remainder piles on cross-tool workflow instructions (update_plan_item ordering, first-build prerequisites, get_file contrast) that dilute the focus and make the definition considerably longer than a two-parameter read tool warrants.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, fully documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers selector omission, fallback resolution, target resolution, and prerequisites. It does not say what the returned list looks like (ordering, whether directories-only or empty folders appear), which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the conversation-state fallback chain when both selectors are omitted, and instructs copying the exact returned strategyId/revisionId pair when creation returned no conversationUpdate. That is actionable semantics the schema descriptions do not express.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists files in any saved strategy revision') plus the ownership scope, and immediately clarifies that folders appear as slash-separated paths. It also implicitly separates this from get_file by noting that get_file needs only a path while list_files needs no selectors, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 states explicit when-to-use rules: omit strategyId/revisionId for the current attached/open strategy, resolve other owned strategies via list_strategies/list_revisions, and call create_strategy first for first-build work. It also gives a concrete branch condition (whether create_strategy returned a conversationUpdate) that determines which selector values to pass.

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