Get project files

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable behavioral context: HEAD is the latest saved code, version_number returns immutable version content, and the file names returned are the exact identifiers used by update_project_content. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the return value, then explains version behavior, then gives the critical usage note about update_project_content. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only file retrieval tool, the description is complete: it names the return fields, explains the version parameter, and states the relationship to the update workflow. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the response shape, and it does so clearly. Missing details like pagination or error cases are not significant for this tool's scope.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking version_number to immutable versions and by noting that returned file names are the exact ones needed for update_project_content. This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions with workflow-level significance.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns the project's full file set with specific fields (files[], name, type, source, per-file update info). It also distinguishes HEAD vs version_number behavior, making the purpose unambiguous. The title 'Get project files' is expanded into concrete details that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_project.

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 says to call this before update_project_content and explains why: replace mode needs the full new set including the manifest, and merge mode addresses files by these exact names. It also clarifies when to use version_number versus the default HEAD, giving the agent actionable routing guidance.

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