List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful interpretation: docs are editable text while 'binary/uploaded' entries are images/PDFs/uploads, which helps an agent interpret the output labels. It does not address ordering, size limits, or the exact form of the main-document marker.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the clarifying note on file types. Slightly terse given it leaves usage and return shape unstated, 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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the meaning of the two content categories. Missing are any note on tree ordering/shape or how the main document is marked, which would matter for an agent parsing the result.

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 schema already explains that the project may be a name, id, or Overleaf URL and may be omitted when one project is pinned. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it 'shows the file tree of a project,' which is clearly distinct from list_projects (projects, not files) and read_file (contents, not structure). It also calls out that the main document is marked, adding scope detail. It stops short of naming any sibling to differentiate against.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative tools named (list_projects, read_file, get_outline are all plausible neighbors). The purpose itself implies the usage context — inspecting project structure before reading or editing — so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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