List Files in a Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: what is returned ({path, type, size?}) and that recursive defaults to true. It does not mention pagination or limits on large trees, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact Args block and a one-line return note. Structure is scannable and earns its place; the Args list partially restates schema descriptions but stays brief.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return shape. Annotations, schema, params and return format are all covered; only pagination/scale behavior on large projects is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by naming the source of projectId (litewrite_list_projects) and giving a concrete example value for directory ('chapters'), adding context the schema lacks.

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 ('List the files and directories in a Litewrite project') plus the backing endpoint. It cross-references litewrite_list_projects for the required id, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling litewrite_local_list (remote vs local listing), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 implied: you call it to enumerate a project's files, and the agent is told to get projectId from litewrite_list_projects. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against local listing alternatives, so this is minimum-viable routing rather than full guidance.

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