code-fundi-list-files

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context: the repository must be indexed, and the tool supports search and pagination, returning file IDs for downstream use. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It covers purpose, capabilities, and a follow-up action without any wasted words or redundant details.

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 straightforward list-files tool, the description covers the essential context: it must be an indexed repo, search/pagination are supported, and file IDs can be used with another tool. However, since there is no output schema, it does not fully describe the response format beyond implying the presence of file IDs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 all parameters (100% coverage), including search and pagination-related fields. The description's mention of 'search by file name/path' and 'pagination' is a high-level restatement, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing files in an indexed Code-Fundi repository. It uses a specific verb+resource (list files) and distinguishes itself by mentioning search and pagination capabilities, as well as linking downstream use to code-fundi-file-docs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list files in an indexed repository, with options for search and pagination. It also provides a clear next step (use file IDs with code-fundi-file-docs), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools.

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