list_project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior through the verb 'list' but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications. It also does not mention behavior around hidden files or sorting, but for a simple listing tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is concise and free of fluff.

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 simple list tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers purpose and usage effectively. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema and a straightforward list operation, this is acceptable. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about pattern matching, but does not elaborate on directory or recursive semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional value is needed since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 tool lists files and directories, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_project_file (reading content) and search_project_code (searching code) by focusing on structure exploration and pattern matching.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use to explore project structure or find files matching a pattern.' This gives reasonable guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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