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 mentions 'at HEAD', which hints at a read-only operation against the current commit, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how results are paginated/structured beyond the output schema. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key option without any redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the return format is defined elsewhere. However, the absence of annotations and the lack of explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. search_files) mean the description does not fully address the agent's need for safe, correct selection. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema provides no parameter explanations. The description clarifies that 'project' (project_id) is the context and 'subpath' is an optional location within it, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail formats or constraints (e.g., whether subpath is a directory, path separator), so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'files within a project', and adds the optional subpath qualifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_files (which searches) and read_file (which reads a single file), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing files at HEAD, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_files or read_file. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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