list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful scoping constraint (only registry and indexed Memory/Attention paths; Discussion is excluded), but it does not disclose details like pagination behavior, access requirements, or what happens when a path is invalid. No contradiction with annotations.

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 states the resource scope, and the second gives an explicit routing alternative. Every word earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with strong annotations, the purpose and main sibling distinction are clear. However, the description leaves several gaps: it does not mention the required project_id, the effect of pagination parameters, or what the returned list contains, and the phrase 'indexed Memory/Attention paths' is vague without defining what 'indexed' means.

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 essentially 0% - the description mentions no parameters by name. The word 'paths' weakly maps to the 'path' property, and the browsing verb implies limit/offset semantics, but nothing clarifies project_id or the meaning of the default values. Since the schema properties have only bare titles and no descriptions, the description should have compensated, and it largely does not.

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 uses 'Browse' as the verb and names the resource ('registry and indexed Memory/Attention paths'), giving a specific scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_discussions' by directing Discussion-related browsing to that tool. It loses the fifth point because 'browse' is somewhat generic and the description does not specify what kind of files or entries are included.

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 routes one key use case ('Use list_discussions for Discussion') to an alternative, which is clear contextual guidance. However, it provides no guidance for other potential alternatives (e.g., search tools or unindexed paths) and does not state when this tool should NOT be used beyond the Discussion case.

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