list_project_filesReturn the customer-uploaded files for one project (path, size, contentType, createdAt). Empty when no drive folder exists yet (no uploads). Use to inspect what intake assets the customer attached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | project id whose uploaded files to list |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"project id whose uploaded files to list"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns a list of files with specific fields and that it returns empty when no drive folder exists. No contradictions. Provides additional context beyond annotations.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose and return fields, then edge case, then use case. Efficient and clear.
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 simple list tool with one parameter, readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, edge case, and use case. Complete for the complexity level.
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% and parameter description in schema is adequate. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'project id whose uploaded files to list'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states specific verb 'Return', resource 'customer-uploaded files for one project', and lists returned fields. Distinct from siblings like list_projects or drive_list_files by focusing on project-level uploaded files and mentions 'intake assets'.
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 states use case: 'Use to inspect what intake assets the customer attached.' Also notes edge case: 'Empty when no drive folder exists yet.' Lacks explicit alternatives but context from siblings and description is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.