list_project_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 burden of behavior disclosure. The description tells the agent the tool is deprecated (useful) but reveals nothing about side effects, return format, pagination behavior, or whether it's a read-only operation. The deprecation status is transparent, but virtually nothing else about behavior is 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 extremely short—a single sentence fragment. While minimal, it's not bloated, and for a deprecated alias tool, brevity may be acceptable since the real documentation lives on the replacement tool. Nothing is wasted, but the under-specification is a weakness rather than intentional conciseness.

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 tool with 2 undocumented (0% coverage) parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns and how parameters behave. The description only flags deprecation and names a replacement. It's arguably acceptable for a deprecated alias since users should be redirected, but it leaves the agent without sufficient context if it still needs to invoke this 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 should compensate for the undocumented path and limit parameters. It provides no parameter information at all—no explanation of what 'path' defaults to, what format it expects, or how 'limit' behaves. The schema has defaults, but the description adds nothing beyond what's in the schema; given zero coverage, the description should have filled this 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?

The description only says it's a 'DEPRECATED alias for project.files.list.v1.' It tells the agent this tool is deprecated and points to a sibling as the replacement, but it doesn't state what the tool itself does (i.e., lists project files). The purpose is only implied through the alias target name, so an agent has to infer functionality from the sibling tool's name.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use project.files.list.v1 instead of this tool, which functions as a when-not-to-use directive. However, it doesn't explain when one would use this deprecated alias vs. alternatives, nor does it describe what the tool actually accomplishes. The deprecation guidance is useful but minimal—it names the replacement but gives no context on usage scenarios.

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