List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It still adds real value by disclosing deterministic offset pagination and that byte sizes and supported text formats are returned — behavioral detail beyond the structured fields, and important given there is no output schema.

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 no filler; the what-it-lists information is front-loaded and the pagination/return details follow immediately. Every clause carries information the agent can use.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (byte sizes, supported text formats, paginated offsets). It stops short of describing result shape or whether listing is recursive, which leaves a small gap for a tool whose output shape is otherwise undocumented.

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% (limit, offset, project, workspace all documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the project/workspace scoping and mentions pagination generically, adding no syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (project files) with an explicit enumeration of the file categories covered (sources, memories, schematics, waveforms, build artifacts) and the scoping context (selected project/workspace). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as project_search or project_read_file, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'under the selected project/workspace' — the agent can infer this is the enumeration tool versus a content-search or single-file reader. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over project_search or list_projects, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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