list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'indexed source files' and include language/line/symbol counts, which implies a read-only index query rather than a filesystem scan. However, it does not state permissions, pagination behavior, or what happens with defaults, so important safety and operational context is missing.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, scope, and returned metadata efficiently. Every phrase 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. For a two-parameter list tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it is minimally adequate: it states scope and counts but omits limit/pagination semantics and sibling routing.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps conceptually to the 'prefix' parameter by saying 'under a path prefix', but it never explains 'limit', its default of 300, or the empty-prefix default. Only partial compensation is provided.

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 indexed source files'. It also adds scope ('under a path prefix') and fields returned ('language, line and symbol counts'). Sibling differentiation is absent: it does not explain how it differs from repo_map, file_outline, or other listing/indexing tools.

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?

It gives an implicit context for use ('under a path prefix') but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. An agent must infer from the name and siblings when this is the right tool. No prerequisites or routing guidance are provided.

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