List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are bounded by depth and entry caps, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, truncation signaling, or the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers (subdir, caps) are stated efficiently. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only listing tool without an output schema, the description conveys scope and bounds but omits return format, truncation behavior, and usage context. Adequate but with clear gaps given the 5 parameters and 40% schema coverage.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description does touch on subdir, maxDepth and maxEntries, adding some intent beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves maxDepth/maxEntries numeric behavior (defaults, hard limits) and the profile parameter unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (files in a project), and clarifies scope with the optional subdir and depth/entry caps. It is distinguishable from sibling listing tools like ris_list_partitions or ris_list_my_jobs, though it doesn't name them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With ~50 sibling tools, nothing tells the agent when this listing tool is the right pick versus ris_list_my_jobs or ris_get_result_manifest.

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