list_project_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses that contents are not returned. It omits behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error scenarios (e.g., invalid root), or whether listing is recursive.

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?

Description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and result. Slightly too brief but avoids redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how glob filtering works, maxResults limits, or the relationship between root and relativePath, leaving the agent with gaps for correct usage.

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 25% (only root described). The tool description adds 'allowed root or subdirectory' hinting at root/relativePath but does not explain glob patterns or maxResults behavior. Scores low due to insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'files', clarifying the scope under 'allowed root or subdirectory' and distinguishing from siblings like read_project_file by stating 'without returning contents'. This clearly differentiates from similar 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like search_project_files or read_project_file. The description only states functionality, not context of use or exclusions.

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