list_project_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the returned field set and explains pagination ('total counts every file; next_cursor ... is passed back as cursor'). It does not say what ordering files come in or the default page size.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the action and returned fields front-loaded before usage guidance and pagination detail. Every sentence conveys information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining pagination, and annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only ordering/page-size expectations for a paginated list, which is minor for a 2-parameter read tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain the cursor contract precisely by tying next_cursor to the cursor input. project_id is only implied ('a project's ... files') rather than described as a required identifier, which is the remaining gap.

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 a project's stored files/assets') and enumerates the returned fields (file_id, name, type, size, upload date) plus the asset kinds covered (template decks, sheets, docs, images). The singular sibling get_project_file is implicitly distinguished by 'list ... all files'.

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 a concrete when-to-use condition: 'Use when a task needs the project's existing templates or deliverables (e.g. the client's audit-deck template).' It does not name an alternative such as get_project_file for single-file retrieval or explain when listing is unnecessary, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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