docgraph_files

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

The description states 'List all indexed files' implying a read-only operation, but annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This creates a direct contradiction about whether the tool modifies state. The description does not resolve this or add any other behavioral traits beyond the conflicting annotation. Hence, it fails to provide accurate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all indexed files'), followed by usage advice and alternative suggestions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage context well but omits details about the output format, pagination, or default behavior for omitted parameters. The contradiction with annotations further undermines completeness. Score is average given these gaps.

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 three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds practical context: for 'path' it clarifies 'bare directory name' and gives an example; for 'project' it explains workspace mode behavior and no-op in single-store mode. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, earning a 4.

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 lists all indexed files with specific extensions (.md, .docx, .html, .pdf). It also mentions filtering by path, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from many siblings like docgraph_context or docgraph_graph, relying on a single sibling comparison (docgraph_node). This prevents a top score.

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 explicitly advises using the path filter to narrow scope and directs users to docgraph_node for a single known document. This provides clear guidance for a common use case. However, no guidance is given for other scenarios or when to avoid this tool entirely, which would be needed for a 5.

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