project.files.list.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the 200-item default limit, whether pagination exists, what happens when the path doesn't exist, whether hidden files are included, or what the return structure looks like. For a listing tool covering potentially huge recursive trees, the absence of limit/overflow caveats is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence, no filler, front-loads the core purpose. Appropriate size for the tool's simple surface area. It earns its place, though a second sentence on limits would strengthen it without bloat.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool involves directory traversal with a default limit, root-boundary constraints, and a path that defaults to '.'. The description leaves all behavioral nuances to inference. Given zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for a recursive listing tool that clearly carries more edge-case behavior than its text conveys.

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 both params (path, limit) are undocumented in the schema itself. The description mentions recursion but says nothing about what 'path' means relative to WP_PROJECT_ROOT, what the default '.' resolves to, or the semantics/cap of 'limit'. The description adds essentially zero parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states it lists files inside WP_PROJECT_ROOT recursively, which is a clear verb+resource+scope statement. However, it doesn't add meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like list_project_files or project.files.read.v1, and the scope 'recursively' is the main distinguishing feature that isn't emphasized relative to alternatives. It's adequate but minimal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs project.files.read.v1, project.files.write.v1, or the near-duplicate sibling list_project_files. No mention of the root-boundary constraint (files outside WP_PROJECT_ROOT cannot be listed) or the default limit behavior. The 'recursively' scoping is the only implied usage signal.

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