List Local Working Copy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it confirms no network call is made, discloses the on-disk path, and states the return shape. It omits failure behavior when the mirror directory is absent.

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-loads the core statement in the first sentence and keeps the whole definition short. The explicit Args block is largely redundant given 100% schema coverage, which is the only minor waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (relative file paths), and annotations cover the safety profile, so the agent has what it needs to call it. The one gap is precondition behavior when no local copy has been pulled yet.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's Args block merely restates the same type/required/meaning with no added syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 in the local mirror of a project") plus the decisive scope qualifier "(no network call)", which cleanly separates it from the remote sibling litewrite_list_files. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context by naming the concrete location (~/.litewrite-mcp/<projectId>) and tying the tool to the litewrite_pull/push/status workflow, which implies when it is useful. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over litewrite_list_files or what to do if the local copy does not yet exist, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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