List source files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'strictly read-only' phrasing adds limited new safety information. It does add useful context about the layer being immutable, but does not disclose output format, ordering, or whether recursion/prefix behavior is applied beyond the schema.

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 only two short sentences, front-loading the verb and resource, with the second sentence reinforcing the read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, this description is largely complete: it states what is listed, where, and that the operation is read-only. It does not explain what a file in RAW_ROOT looks like or what the returned list contains, but the title and schema reasonably cover the essential usage context.

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%, with the optional 'prefix' parameter fully described as 'Only files under this prefix.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already carries this burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('files in the immutable source layer (RAW_ROOT)'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The title 'List source files' reinforces this, and the RAW_ROOT distinction separates it from sibling wiki_list_pages and raw_read.

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 clearly identifies the context: listing files in the immutable, read-only source layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the RAW_ROOT reference and strict read-only note make the intended scope fairly unambiguous.

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