list_indexed_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavior. It conveys a read-only metadata snapshot ('currently'), states the returned fields, and frames staleness as an expected condition. It does not explicitly state that it never triggers indexing or how recently the index was refreshed, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the operation and result fields, the second adds pragmatic use cases. No filler or redundancy.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description nearly suffices; the only real gap is the unmentioned path_prefix filtering, but the optional nature and param name mitigate the risk.

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 0%, and the description never mentions path_prefix or how filtering works. An agent must infer the parameter's meaning from its title alone, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('what's currently in the index'), and enumerates the returned fields (file path, chunk count, last indexed time). This is enough to separate it from siblings like index_directory or search_notes.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: checking coverage before searching and debugging stale/missing results. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly list exclusions, but the guidance clearly implies reading index state rather than changing it.

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