list_crossproject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns metadata (type, size, modified date) and supports recursive tree listing, which are the key behavioral traits for a listing tool. It stops short of describing failure modes or config requirements, but the schema already notes the workspace configuration gap.

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 focused sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds distinguishing context and return-value 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 list operation with four parameters fully described in the schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the resource, the scope, the metadata returned, and the recursive option. It omits explicit error conditions or workspace-config behavior, but the schema already hints at the missing workspace configuration.

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 path, maxDepth, recursive, and workspace. The description adds general context about workspace roots and recursive listing but does not materially enhance the parameter-level meaning 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?

The description clearly states the action: list files and directories in a configured workspace root, with return metadata and recursive listing. It also differentiates this from the current project workspace and from sibling read/write/edit/search/run tools by specifying listing behavior.

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 useful context that this targets external or companion repos rather than the current project workspace, implying when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like read_crossproject or search_crossproject, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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