mcquest_list_files

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The description importantly discloses that the operation is read-only, lists source files, excludes large generated and dependency directories, and returns relative paths. It does not mention how pattern or max_results affect behavior, but the core operational expectations are well disclosed.

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 concise, frontloaded with the essential 'READ ONLY' safety signal, and every sentence adds relevant detail. The formatting is clean and easy to scan. There is no wasted content or unnecessary repetition.

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 listing tool, the description covers the central use case well, including scope, exclusions, and output form. However, it leaves pattern and max_results semantically thin, and the small amount of guidance about alternatives is not fully complete. An agent could invoke it correctly with the defaults, but would benefit from clearer behavior description.

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 0%, and the description only loosely addresses the path concept by talking about project directories. The pattern and max_results parameters are not explained at all, and their meaning must be inferred from their names and defaults. This is a meaningful gap because the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List source files under a project directory') and clarifies the tool returns relative file paths. It clearly indicates what is excluded, which helps define scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling find_files tool. Overall, purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this over searching when the directory to inspect is known, giving practical guidance. The statement implies the alternative is a search-based approach for less precise exploration. It does not enumerate all sibling tools or exclusions, but the primary usage context is clear.

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