atelierb_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (list) and scope (workspace), plus filtering options, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether the search is recursive, or any limitations such as requiring a project to be open.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by filtering capabilities. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read-only listing tool with only two optional parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the core functionality and filters. It could be improved by explicitly stating the output (e.g., list of file paths) and differentiating from list_components, but overall it provides adequate context.

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 provides full descriptions for both optional parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'filtering by project and extension' adds little beyond the schema, and the example extensions (.mch, .ref) are also present in the schema's extension_filter description.

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's function: 'List B source files in the workspace.' It specifies the resource (B source files), the action (list), and the scope (workspace). The mention of filtering by project and extension also distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_projects and list_components.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or state exclusions. While the purpose implies usage for listing source files, the description lacks any 'use this when' or 'not for' context.

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