list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it only shows indexed files (excluding gitignored, node_modules, etc.), provides a recommended workflow, and implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 perfectly sized at two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and limitation, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, limitations, and recommended workflow. However, for such a rich tool, it could benefit from mentioning what the output looks like (especially since there's no output schema) and any performance considerations given the many filtering options.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema - it mentions using the 'path' parameter for drilling into folders and 'format' parameter with 'summary' for initial layout understanding. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('list project files and folder structure') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it shows only indexed files, excluding gitignored and node_modules. It explicitly differentiates from potential search/filter siblings by focusing on listing rather than content searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use format "summary" first to understand project layout, then drill into specific folders with the path parameter.' This gives a clear workflow recommendation and distinguishes it from tools like 'grep' or 'search' that might focus on content rather than structure.

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