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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety guarantees. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by specifying the API endpoint and the fields returned, but it does not disclose additional nuances such as default pagination behavior or what 'status' represents.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action, resource, and field list. The API endpoint is a useful addition and nothing in the description is wasted.

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 straightforward read-only list operation, the description, schema, and annotations together cover the resource, key output fields, required parameter, and safety profile. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar sibling list tools.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds only the projectId context through the API endpoint path, providing no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List source files in a project' and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, path, type, status). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools beyond the resource name being 'files'.

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 implies when to use this tool (whenever source files in a project are needed) and gives context by naming the project scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like crowdin_list_directories or crowdin_list_strings, nor does it mention exclusions.

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