List project data files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: it returns names only (not paths or contents). It says nothing about ordering or result limits, so it does not go further than a minimum.

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 constraint precedes the examples. It is efficient, though the phrasing 'Names of...' is a fragment rather than an explicit action statement.

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 simple list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the kind narrows the result. The main gap is the absence of usage routing against sibling listers, which is not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the enum/filters are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'one kind' selector with examples that map to enum values but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 clear resource (project data files) and an implicit listing verb, scoped to 'one kind' with concrete examples (test runs, vehicles, drivers, tyres). It is distinguishable from siblings like cm_results_list or cm_list_workspace_vars, though it never names or acknowledges 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite numerous sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the catalogue-style lister for project data rather than results or workspace variables.

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