list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only intent and the HEAD snapshot context, but does not describe recursive behavior, hidden file inclusion, or any restrictions. This is adequate but not deeply transparent for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every piece—action, resource, optional path, HEAD—is meaningful and necessary.

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?

The description provides the core operation and the HEAD context, which is important for a list operation. The output schema likely covers the return structure, so little is missing. The only gaps are small ambiguities around recursion and file-type inclusion, but these do not prevent correct invocation.

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?

The description explains 'subpath' as an optional scope restriction and implies project_id as the target project identifier. With schema description coverage at 0%, this only partially compensates—project_id remains an opaque identifier, and the subpath format is not specified beyond 'optionally under a subpath'.

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 specifically states the verb-resource relationship: 'List files within a project' with an optional 'subpath' and at 'HEAD'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_projects and search_files by naming the exact operation and scope.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you want a listing of files in a project, possibly under a subpath, at HEAD. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or when not to use this tool over search_files or read_file, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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