list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns paths, sizes, and hashes, but does not disclose pagination, performance implications for large projects, or whether it returns only top-level or recursive contents. Without output schema, more detail on return format would help.

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?

Single clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and specifies output fields. Could be slightly more efficient by removing 'their' but still concise.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but missing details on recursion depth or pagination. Siblings like delete_file or patch_file have no additional context needed, but for a list operation, knowing default sorting or limits would improve completeness.

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% (one required parameter with description). The description adds no additional info about the project_id parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema is sufficient.

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 a project'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects, list_env, or list_deployments. It also specifies the data returned (paths, sizes, hashes).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, there's no mention of filters (like by path) or when to use grep or read_file instead. The context of listing all files in a project is implied but not explicitly differentiated.

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