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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns only paths, not contents, and names typical Astro directories. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the output schema and read-only nature reduce the need for that detail.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the supporting workflow and Astro paths provided in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a list-only tool: it states what is returned, what is not returned, how to proceed afterward, and provides relevant file-path hints. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (app_id and context) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully explains them.

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 tool lists source file paths (names only, not contents), which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from read_files by explicitly noting that contents are not included, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to see the project structure and then use read_files to get contents before editing. This provides a clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative, making the routing decision straightforward.

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